BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Kent County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [ Lords]

Bill read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked-

Short Custodial Sentences

David Davies: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of short custodial sentences in reducing reoffending.

Douglas Carswell: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of short custodial sentences in reducing reoffending.

Jack Straw: Overall, the reoffending rate for all adult offenders went down by 15.9 per cent. between 2000 and 2008, and by a greater margin in respect of juvenile offenders. However, there is a problem, which I readily acknowledge, in respect of short-sentence prisoners, among whom the reoffending rate increased in the same period by 3.9 per cent. Those persistent offenders tend to be the most intractable to deal with, having failed on community punishments and failed to deal with their alcohol and drug abuse. The courts, police and National Offender Management Service are putting great effort into directing more of these offenders from crime, including through intensive alternatives to custody, "through the gate" supervision and better management of offenders, which is being piloted in the integrated offender management projects. Those measures are all helping to shape an improved strategy for short-sentence prisoners. In addition, last week I announced a very important initiative with the organisation Social Finance in respect of Peterborough prison, where social investors are to be paid by results to get reoffending down.

David Davies: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Does he agree that the ineffectiveness of short custodial sentences, which we both agree about, is not remedied by saying, "Let's not send people to prison at all"? It would be remedied far better by looking at the reoffending rate for those with long sentences, which is much lower, and by ensuring that people are kept in prison long enough to address their problems with alcoholism, drugs and lack of education.

Jack Straw: The Government are the last people to suggest that people should not be sent to prison when the courts require it. One of the main drivers of the 25,000 increase in the prison population since 1997 has been that the courts, quite correctly, have been sending more people to prison and for longer. As for getting the prison population down, the hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks to those on his own Front Bench. It was, after all, the shadow Justice Secretary who said that if he could get back to the prison numbers that existed in 1993-44,000 rather than 84,000-he would have succeeded, and that he would be very happy to have that engraved on his tombstone. I think that it would be rather more of a political tombstone were he to try that. The people in prison need to be there, and what we must do is make more effective use of short sentences.

Douglas Carswell: Many of those given short custodial sentences often have drug addiction issues. Would it not help to reduce reoffending if non-statutory organisations, charities and non-state players were given a greater role in helping to tackle drug addiction, both inside prison and when prisoners come out?

Jack Straw: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As has been brought out by the excellent Public Accounts Committee report that came out recently, most of those persistent offenders have drug and alcohol abuse problems. We have increased by 15 times the amount of money spent on drug abuse and better education about drugs in prison, and as the hon. Gentleman might know, we are making much more use of voluntary organisations. Obviously, they have to enter into proper contracts with the state.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend mentioned that the Government are pursuing intensive alternatives to custody. Will he tell the House what effect that approach is having in reducing reoffending?

Jack Straw: The emerging evidence from the evaluations in the six areas where intensive alternatives to custody are being piloted suggests that they are significantly reducing reoffending. I have seen one of them in operation in Derby. There is no doubt that if they are properly planned and executed they can effectively force offenders to face up to the reasons why they are offending, and can establish strong discipline on them in the community. If that works, it is all to the good.

Dominic Grieve: The Justice Secretary failed to point out that the goal to which I aspire on prison numbers is matched by the goal of reducing crime.
	Statistics published last week show that the reoffending rate among those subject to drug rehabilitation requirements is even higher than that among those who serve short prison sentences-although those two groups are often the same people. Does the Secretary of State accept that maintaining offenders on methadone is a counsel of failure, and will he give courts the power to impose abstinence-based drug rehabilitation orders to help offenders-with short sentences and long-to give up drugs once and for all?

Jack Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman highlights the fact that the group consisting of short-sentence prisoners is the most intractable to deal with. That is accepted in the round, and a great deal of work is going on to get them away from crime. Some of the "through the gates" work being done in London with the St. Giles Trust and the Metropolitan police has been excellent. Key challenges include ensuring that people are not offending-not when they are in prison, where, on the whole they cannot, but from the moment they leave prison-and dealing with their incredibly chaotic lives. He is really talking about the same thing. The prescription of methadone has to be a medical matter. Simply taking people off any kind of drug on which they are dependent when they are not ready for that will not resolve anything. However, we do have drug abstinence programmes in place.

Dominic Grieve: But is it not small wonder that prisoners coming off short sentences are more likely than not to reoffend, given that, despite the "through the gates" programmes, the delays in assessing prisoners mean that most do not even undertake rehabilitation work until halfway through their sentence-and there is then wasteful duplication of assessments-and also given that up to half of prisoners spend almost all day in their cells?

Jack Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman draws attention to the findings of a National Audit Office report to which I have already referred, which shows that there are some excellent practices and some less than excellent practices in prisons. We are committed to responding very quickly to such issues-a response that includes improving the time that it takes to assess prisoners, as he suggests.

Retail Crime

Anne McIntosh: How many people have been prosecuted for offences related to retail crime in the last 12 months.

Claire Ward: The Ministry of Justice's court proceedings database does not hold information on offences beyond descriptions in the statutes under which prosecutions are brought. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that convictions for shoplifting rose by 9 per cent. and that some 45,600 penalty notices for disorder were issued for retail thefts under £200 in 2008. The Government take crime against businesses very seriously, and we are firmly committed to working to find effective solutions and responses to crimes against businesses.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply, but it is a load of twaddle. That 9 per cent. increase, those 45,000 offences and the police computer system that does not recognise multiple offences are the legacy of the Labour Government. The Conservatives will do better.

Claire Ward: It would be very interesting to see how the Conservatives would do better, given that they want to tie the hands of the police and crime enforcement officers in relation to many of the measures that we are using effectively, such as those involving DNA and CCTV. Perhaps the hon. Lady should talk to her Front-Bench team and her party leader about changing their policy if they really have a strong message on crime.

Anne McIntosh: That was a highly inappropriate answer, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to withdraw, and beg leave to introduce an Adjournment debate on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but in any event I am intending to move on to the next question.

Reoffending

Sandra Gidley: What recent representations he has received on policies to reduce levels of reoffending.

Maria Eagle: The Government receive a wide range of representations on policies to reduce reoffending, ranging from regular meetings with front-line staff, sentencers and third sector organisations to the detailed consideration of more formal reports from parliamentary Committees or external bodies such as the National Audit Office.

Sandra Gidley: The NAO's report of two weeks ago revealed that reoffending by people released from short-term prison sentences is costing £10 billion a year. We seem to be supporting colleges of crime. Is it not time for some serious research into what works to reduce reoffending, perhaps through something analogous to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-a NICE for the Ministry of Justice?

Maria Eagle: It is always difficult to get the balance right between researching into problems and spending money on actually dealing with them. We prefer to spend money on dealing with problems, and that is working. Reoffending has gone down: since 2000 the reoffending rate has reduced by 15.9 per cent., crime is down by 36 per cent. and violent crime is down by 41 per cent. There are 6 million fewer crimes a year than in 1995 and the chances of being a victim of crime are at their lowest since records began in 1981. That is a record of which we are proud.

Julie Morgan: I know that the Minister is aware that women who offend often have multiple problems such as alcoholism and substance abuse. Does she agree that by addressing those problems through mentoring schemes such as those in the Women's Turnaround project in Cardiff, which has recently benefited from another Government grant, we will reduce reoffending?

Maria Eagle: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I, too, commend the work of Women's Turnaround in Cardiff, which I have visited and for which, as she rightly says, the Ministry of Justice provides some funding. The project does excellent work in tackling the causes of offending among women who often end up serving short sentences, and whose life situations worsen because of those short sentences, rather than their being able to tackle the cause of their offending.

David Howarth: I will not repeat what I normally say on these occasions about the crime rate falling throughout the whole of the western world since the mid-1990s, but I am encouraged by the tone of both the Secretary of State and the Minister on the issue of reoffending. May I ask them to commit, in the forthcoming election campaign, to sticking to evidence about what works, instead of the debate in the campaign descending to the usual arms race that harms victims of crime in the long run, and undermines the political system in this country?

Maria Eagle: The victims of crime in this country want crime dealt with effectively, which means not only protecting the public by locking up serious and dangerous offenders-who ought to be locked up-but enabling people who are in prison to tackle the causes of their offending behaviour. We do both, and it is a record on which we are proud to stand.

Adrian Bailey: The Minister will be aware that a lot of persistent reoffenders have low educational achievement, which in turn is often the result of speech and language difficulties from an early age. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to work done by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and other interested bodies on screening tools that could deal with that issue and provide more support in prisons to address the problem.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is correct: low educational attainment is one of the factors that can cause crime and reoffending, which is why we have trebled the amount we spend on offender learning in our prisons to £175 million over the current three-year period. That has led to 36 per cent. of those leaving our prisons going into education, training or employment. The figure is not high enough, but it is an awful lot better than it was. My hon. Friend is correct to say that we need to be aware of issues such as learning disability that may prevent prisoners from accessing the support and help that exists. We are getting better at remedying that.

Alan Duncan: As the Minister has just implied, good education courses in prison can indeed dramatically reduce reoffending, but can she explain why the Manchester College was awarded further contracts to run education services in prisons, only to announce soon afterwards that it needed to make more than 300 people redundant? Given that the college seems to have massively overreached itself, on what basis was it awarded the contracts, and what responsibility does the Minister take for this rather sad and hopeless state of affairs?

Maria Eagle: The procurement of services such as education in prisons is conducted in a proper manner, in accordance with EU regulations and the laws of this nation. There is no doubt about the fact that the college was properly awarded the contract. I cannot comment on the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman refers to-the college's internal arrangements, and how many people it does or does not employ. That is a matter for the college, but the contracts it has undertaken with us have been properly procured and carried out to a proper standard.

Service Personnel (Voting)

James Duddridge: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that service personnel serving abroad will be able to vote in the forthcoming general election.

Mark Harper: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that service personnel serving abroad will be able to vote in the forthcoming general election.

Michael Wills: For registration, we have extended the period for service declarations to five years, and the Electoral Commission is leading a drive to increase registration, including providing bespoke registration forms for service personnel in Afghanistan. Proxy votes are available to all registered service personnel serving overseas, and we are also offering a bespoke scheme to expedite postal voting in Afghanistan. For the longer term, we are consulting on measures to provide a comprehensive solution. I have written to Opposition parties asking them to sign up to that commitment on a cross-party basis.

James Duddridge: Sadly, that is too little, too late. Given that the working group was set up in January, why has it not yet reported, and can the Minister confirm that a working group set up in January will have no impact whatever on the next election?

Michael Wills: I am sad that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, has his facts wrong in almost every particular. The working group was not set up in January; it was set up last autumn. The hon. Gentleman should not take his information from what he reads in the papers; they are not always right. In this case they are wrong, and he was wrong to quote them. I am sorry that he thinks what we have done is too little, too late-and I am trying to recall all the letters he has written to me about this issue in the past, but I am afraid I cannot recall any. In fact, the Opposition were, sadly, silent on the subject until I started work on it.  [ Interruption. ] I am afraid the record speaks for itself, and it is quite clear. I am happy to show it to any hon. Member who wants to approach me afterwards.  [ Interruption. ] As Opposition Members well know, I have tried to approach the matter on a cross-party basis. It is important for all Members of the House to do everything they can to expedite postal voting for those who want to use it, and to ensure that every member of the armed services is registered to vote. That is the work that we are undertaking. The working party has reported, and if the hon. Gentleman knew what his Front-Bench team know, he would know that I wrote to them a few days ago asking them to support the work proposed by the working group.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Replies, though comprehensive, are rather long. We need to speed up a bit.

Mark Harper: My constituent, Corporal Stephen Thompson, who, sadly, was killed in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago after having volunteered to serve in 3 Rifles Battle Group, was serving his country and protecting democracy in Afghanistan. It is very important, therefore, that servicemen in such a position are able to vote. The Minister said that he would put in place for this election a bespoke postal voting service. Can he assure the House that all the votes of service personnel serving in Afghanistan who use that will get back to their constituencies to count for this election? At the last election, only 28 per cent. of service personnel were able to vote.

Michael Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am sure the whole House wishes to express its appreciation of the sacrifice that his constituent made. It is fundamentally important that we all do everything we can, for exactly the reasons that the hon. Gentleman set out. I can assure the House that we have better arrangements for postal voting in this election than we had in previous elections. It is worth reminding the House that every member of the armed services can vote by proxy, should they so wish, and there is no doubt about that vote being registered. But as the hon. Gentleman will know, there are service personnel operating in extremely difficult and arduous circumstances in Afghanistan, often in remote areas. We are doing everything we can to get the ballot forms out as quickly as possible and back as quickly as possible. There will be a significant improvement. I cannot guarantee that every one will be able to be counted, but we are doing everything we can. For the future-this is important-we are now looking into how we can move to electronic voting for the next general election, and we want to get support for that. It is very complicated and will involve huge changes to electoral law. We want to move together on an all-party basis. This will sort the matter out once and for all, and we hope we will have the hon. Gentleman's support in doing so.

Derek Twigg: When I was Under-Secretary of State for Defence, a great deal of effort went in, with the Ministry of Defence, to get as many service personnel abroad registered to vote as possible. What role are the local authorities playing, and what efforts are they putting in to ensure that as many personnel as possible are able to vote?

Michael Wills: Registration is the fundamental prerequisite to being able to vote, and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend did when he was at the Ministry of Defence. Huge effort has gone into that, and it is working. In the past year the number of service declarations has gone up by 15 per cent., and we need to get the figure up higher. I think it will be higher by the election after next, and we will do everything we can. We have invited all hon. Members to contribute to the process, and that invitation is still extant. We want everyone to do everything possible to make sure that everyone serving in our armed services can vote.

Brian H Donohoe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done in achieving such a high return among service personnel. Does that extend to the families of personnel, many of whom are in Germany and elsewhere in the world?

Michael Wills: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend is doing with his constituents in the armed services and their families to make sure that they can vote. It is fundamental that families serving overseas should have that facility. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), of course local authorities have a fundamental role to play in this. We all have a role, We should do everything we can, and the Government are doing everything they can.

Eleanor Laing: As the Minister has decided to leave the House at the general election, this might be the last opportunity we have to thank him for his consistent courtesy, and to pay tribute to him for his hard work, and for what I might describe as his good intentions. I am grateful to him for the letter to which he referred a moment ago, which he sent me last Thursday-and yes, I can answer that we will co-operate in a cross-party way. He says in the letter that the Government intend to launch a consultation for the next Parliament because members of the working group all agreed that concrete steps must be taken. That is a clear admission that the Government know that they have not taken sufficient steps to make sure that members of the armed forces serving our country abroad will be able to vote. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may well have tried his best, but why do Ministers not want to hear the verdict of members of the armed forces on 13 years of Labour Government?

Michael Wills: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words, but I am also particularly grateful-this is the really important point-for her agreement to work with us on a cross-party basis. We want service voters to be able to vote. It does not matter who they vote for; it is a fundamental democratic principle that those who are giving their all-and in some cases their lives-in the service of this country should be able, as far as they possibly can, to express their vote, whoever they vote for. It is wrong of her to suggest that anything sinister is going on. These are difficult and complex matters, and I have already said that we have taken a lot of steps to solve these problems. We have made considerable progress, and we are going to go on making progress.
	I have said clearly that registration rates are going up-indeed, that they have gone up by 15 per cent. in the last year-and the hon. Lady must agree that that is a significant achievement by local authorities, by the Electoral Commission and by the officers and service personnel themselves, who are driving that increase. We are putting measures in place to ensure that service voters can vote as they want. That is the crucial point. She always overlooks the point that all service voters can vote by proxy, so they are not being denied a stake in the general election in this country. The question-

Peter Bone: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the Minister to resume his seat. I have very gently indicated that answers must be shorter.

Members of Parliament (Recall)

Danny Alexander: What recent representations he has received on proposals for a system for constituents to recall hon. Members.

Jack Straw: The Government have received 74 items of correspondence calling for the introduction of a recall law. We are committed to legislating for a recall mechanism in the new Parliament, and I look forward to discussions with other parties, with a view to reaching an agreed solution.

Danny Alexander: The Minister says that he supports a power of recall, and of course I welcome that, but is it not disappointing, therefore, that the Labour Whips in another place ensured that an amendment to legislation there, which would have achieved such a power and allowed it to be put in place now, was defeated? In the light of the lobbying scandal and the pressure in favour of introducing a power of recall, rather than talking about it, is it not time for the Government to act?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman may not have spotted this, but there is going to be a general election some time before June the third-[Hon. Members: "The fourth!"] Some time before June the fourth. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the record can be corrected and the tapes amended accordingly. The issue of recall legislation in this Parliament is, frankly, otiose. It is for the next Parliament to deal with, and we have to get the system right-but it comes as no surprise to this House that the proposals drawn up by the Liberal Democrats on the back of an envelope do not quite do the job that is required.

David Howarth: Can we be specific about this issue? I know from their proposals that the Government support a recall mechanism for the other place, but is the Secretary of State now saying that he also supports a recall mechanism for the Commons? If so, that would be a very great advance, and we would very much welcome it. Indeed, if he has moved on that issue, will he now move on proportional representation, too?

Jack Straw: This may well be the hon. Gentleman's last outing, too, so I pay tribute to him for the work that he has undertaken. However, he needs to get some better briefing, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the Labour party conference on 29 September that we were committed-

David Heath: We were not invited.

Jack Straw: It was hardly a private meeting; it was in the middle of the leader's speech. In that speech on 29 September, the Prime Minister announced his commitment, and that of the Government and my party, to a recall mechanism for this House.

Settlements out of Court

Harry Cohen: How many court orders were not executed as a result of a settlement out of court in the most recent period for which figures are available.

Bridget Prentice: Settlements are primarily matters between the parties to the case. It is a matter, therefore, for the claimant to decide whether to accept an offer at any stage, including, in some cases, before court proceedings have been formally issued. Therefore, we do not hold figures centrally to reflect the number of court cases that end as a result of a settlement out of court.

Harry Cohen: Did not Mr. Justice Vos, in the Max Clifford case involving the private investigators of Mulcaire, Whittamore and News International, order the disclosure of documents which would have shown the extent of the industrial scale of the defendants' illegal hacking-so was not News International's settling out of court with Mr. Clifford a manipulation of the judicial system to avoid compliance with the disclosure orders? Is not this a scandalous process, amounting to a £1 million cover-up to protect Tory director of communications Andy Coulson, then  News of the World editor, from being accountable for the gross malpractices for which he was responsible-

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is in danger of becoming a mini-speech; the hon. Gentleman has already made his point with force and alacrity.

Bridget Prentice: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. Of course, any further investigation into allegations about phone-tapping is really a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. However, we are aware of the report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and we are considering our response to that. It has made some very serious recommendations, and we will of course take those on board and respond in due course.

Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that reply, I hereby give notice that I shall be making an application to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Once again, I had in any case decided to move on to the next question.

Libel Tourism

John Whittingdale: Whether he plans to take steps to reduce the incidence of libel tourism; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the recent report on this issue by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which he chairs. In parallel, in January I established a working group on the libel laws, and I have today, by written ministerial statement, published that report. As the latter makes clear, action on libel tourism is urgently needed and will be taken as soon as possible. That will be part of a draft libel Bill that we intend to publish in the new Parliament, as well as other more immediate action that we believe, and the working party believes, could be undertaken by changes in the procedural rules and in judicial practice.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the Government's statement this morning, which appears to address a number of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on reform of the libel system. However, on the specific issue of libel tourism, is the Secretary of State aware that only last month the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced support for federal legislation in America to allow US courts to negate the judgments of UK courts in libel actions, on the basis that UK courts do not give sufficient recognition to the need for freedom of expression? Does he accept that that is a matter of profound concern that we need to address as a matter of urgency?

Jack Straw: Yes. The hon. Gentleman properly draws attention to the fact that our defamation laws have developed in rather an unbalanced way. They are now, for example, having a chilling effect on legitimate and important scientific research. We therefore have to bring them back, not into direct symmetry with those of other jurisdictions, but into a better balance.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that we, too, support sensible and well-thought-out reforms of libel law? Why is the statutory instrument before another place being delayed by certain Labour peers? Does he agree that when it comes to capping success fees, we must strike a balance between controlling excessive costs and ensuring that our constituents have the right to access justice to protect their reputations?

Mr. Speaker: That was two questions, but one answer will suffice.

Henry Bellingham: Take the easy one.

Jack Straw: I will answer the first one-the difficult one. I am afraid that I have no control over Members of the other place. I do not agree for a moment with the approach that they are taking. We are strongly committed to producing better sense in the no win, no fee arrangements. I am clear that reducing success fees from 100 per cent. to 10 per cent. will not prevent well-founded claims from being made, but it should put off those who are chancers, along with their lawyers, who have in the past obtained both costs and compensation, wholly disproportionate to the alleged defamation that they have suffered.

Domestic Violence

Christine Russell: What steps his Department is taking to assist victims of domestic violence.

Claire Ward: Since 1997, the Government have been working to ensure that domestic violence law supports and protects all victims of domestic abuse. We have introduced practical system changes to promote co-ordinated community responses to domestic violence, including the establishment of specialist domestic violence courts. On 19 March, we announced that from 1 April 2010 there will be 141 SDVC systems. That means that the Government's target of having a total of 128 court systems in place by 2011 will be not only met but exceeded a year ahead of schedule.

Christine Russell: I thank the Minister for her detailed response. Will she join me in praising the Cheshire domestic violence partnership, which was recently shortlisted for a local innovation award? It is working extremely well with the special advisers that the Minister has mentioned.
	Children who witness domestic violence are also victims. What advice do the Government give to domestic violence partnerships and the courts on supporting children?

Claire Ward: Of course I join my hon. Friend in praising the work of the Cheshire domestic violence partnership. The effect on children who witness domestic violence and abuse can be harrowing, and their needs must be reflected in any strategy dealing with the effects of such abuse. The services of independent domestic violence advisers are integral to providing additional support to the victims of domestic violence and their families in both normal criminal courts and family courts. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about the other services that we are providing for victims, especially through the national victims service.

David Burrowes: How can it be just that last year, about 40,000 victims of violence saw their cases not taken to court but dealt with by a caution, and four out of five offenders who made it to court were not ordered to pay compensation? In the dying days of this Government, will the Minister ensure that we have not just a national victims service but national victims' justice, so that we see more offenders convicted in court and made to pay back for their crimes?

Claire Ward: This Government have done far more for victims by introducing the national victims service, which will provide caseworkers for those who are affected by the most serious crimes and those who are the most vulnerable. In addition to bringing more criminal cases, the Crown Prosecution Service continues to improve its performance in respect of domestic violence, and the charge to conviction rate for 2008-09 was 72.2 per cent., exceeding the CPS's target of the previous year.

Rosie Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting West Lancashire and meeting representatives of West Lancashire women's refuge, who deserve congratulations on their effort and work on the front line in dealing with the fallout from domestic violence and who are keen to discuss with Ministers the positive Government contribution and commitment to funding the tackling of domestic violence?

Claire Ward: I am very happy to do whatever I can to support the good work that my hon. Friend is doing in her constituency.

Prisons (Muslim Gangs)

Peter Bone: What recent assessment he has made of the extent of the operation of Muslim gangs in prisons.

Maria Eagle: We take the issue of gangs and security in prison very seriously. We work with our law enforcement partners, including the police and others, to identify and manage risks to safety, order and control.

Peter Bone: A former Muslim inmate has said:
	"Muslims run the prisons and there's nothing screws can do about it".
	After 13 years of Labour, this tired Government are making things worse. Does the Minister agree that things cannot go on like this and that it is time for change?

Maria Eagle: It is complete nonsense to say that Muslim gangs, or any gangs, run prisons. Our prisons are run by the National Offender Management Service and by the staff. We have prison intelligence networks that can identify threats to order and control, and we have ways of ensuring that such threats are tackled effectively. We are doing that as well now as we ever have in the whole 13 years of this Government.

George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to monitor, and when necessary act against, groups that fall under the influence of Salafist ideology, particularly when they are associated with groups such as al-Qaeda?

Maria Eagle: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I can tell him and the House that such activity does go on in our prisons. The statement quoted by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is sheer nonsense.

Crown Dependencies

Andrew MacKinlay: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of the Crown dependencies on their relationship with Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Wills: The Ministry of Justice has frequent discussions at many levels with the Governments of the Crown dependencies. We discuss many aspects of our constitutional relationship, including on occasion the islands' relationships with other Government Departments.

Andrew MacKinlay: I thank the Minister for what he did to help resolve the dispute between the Isle of Man and our Department of Health. However, are not the lessons of that dispute that there need to be more bilateral meetings between Ministers of the Crown dependencies and Whitehall Ministers that avoid the Sir Humphreys, and that the Ministry of Justice needs to reassert its lead role throughout Whitehall as the conduit between Her Majesty's Government and the Crown dependency Governments?

Michael Wills: One lesson of the recent dispute was the persuasive eloquence of my hon. Friend. He deserves a lot of praise for that, and he will be much missed in this House.
	This Government take our relationship with the Crown dependencies extremely seriously. Certainly when I was the Minister responsible, I had frequent meetings with them, as does my colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Bach. I am sure that all Ministers in the Ministry of Justice will continue to do that. I know my hon. Friend's views on the Sir Humphreys and so on, but the officials who deal with such matters are excellent. They do a very good job, on which they should be congratulated.

Prisoners (Republic of Ireland Nationals)

Philip Hollobone: How many Republic of Ireland nationals are serving sentences in prisons in England and Wales.

Maria Eagle: At the end of June 2009, there were 524 prisoners from the Republic of Ireland serving sentences of imprisonment in England and Wales.

Philip Hollobone: Given the cost to the British taxpayer of their incarceration, and that only Jamaican and Nigerian nationals have higher populations in our jails, why is Her Majesty's Government not returning to secure detention in the Republic Irish nationals who consent to go?

Maria Eagle: Such arrangements are voluntary. If people wish to go, their returns can be facilitated, and there is no reason why not. We no longer deport-except in exceptional circumstances-at the end of a sentence of imprisonment because of the operation of the common travel area, which means that people can simply return.

FOI Request

Norman Baker: Although it is not entirely necessary, for the avoidance of doubt, I draw hon. Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. When does the Ministry of Justice plan to respond to the freedom of information request submitted to it by me in January 2010?

Bridget Prentice: I sent a reply to the hon. Gentleman last week. I apologise to him and the House that, because of the depth of consideration required, we were unable to respond within the 20-day statutory period.

Norman Baker: In early January, we learned the astonishing news that in 2003 Lord Hutton recommended that material relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly should be locked away for 70 years. That material would have been made public had the matter been dealt with in a coroner's court. On 27 January, Lord Hutton indicated that he was now content for the material to be released to medical experts, who are threatening legal action against the Government, and I tabled the FOI request to which the Minister replied. The doctors have heard nothing, and my request has been turned down. Where is that material? Will she now comply with Lord Hutton's request for it to be made publicly available?

Bridget Prentice: Our refusal of the hon. Gentleman's request is an entirely legitimate and normal use of the exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act. The correspondence to which he refers is a matter of public record and represents nothing new. We have already provided to the Hutton inquiry, by third parties, a clear expectation that its contents would remain confidential. I reiterate the commitment made to him by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) to revisit the Government's position should he come forward with any new evidence.

Julian Lewis: Is the Minister satisfied that no foreign Government were involved in the sponsorship of the question that she has just answered?

Bridget Prentice: I suspect that that is not a matter for me.

Prisoners Released in Error

Shailesh Vara: What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of prisoners released in error.

Maria Eagle: While the proportion of prisoners released in error is very small, being about one twentieth of 1 per cent., the Prison Service is making every effort to reduce the number further. All releases in error must be reported immediately and are subject to formal investigation so that lessons can be learned. It is a mandatory requirement that prisons check the correctness of the calculation of a prisoner's release date and entitlement to release on two separate occasions just prior to release. Prison governors have been reminded of the importance of these checks and the need to follow up any errors immediately.

Shailesh Vara: The fact is that over the past two years the number of prisoners released early has increased by 45 per cent. Does the Minister agree that it is bad enough that the Government have an official early release programme, but worse still that so many criminals are being released early?

Maria Eagle: I do not really understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about; his first question was about releases in error, but he is now talking about early release. All that I can say is that we look very carefully to make sure that people are not released in error, but that where they are, they are immediately brought back to custody, as almost all of them are. The figures were not even collected by his party when it was last in government, so at least we know what the situation is now.

Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection

Andrew Stunell: What progress has been made on plans to review the operation of indeterminate sentences for public protection.

Jack Straw: Imprisonment for public protection sentences play an important part in protecting the public. We are currently considering the recommendations of the joint thematic review on indeterminate sentences, published by the prisons and probation inspectorates, for improving the operation of those sentences.

Andrew Stunell: The Secretary of State will know that there are 2,400 post-tariff prisoners cluttering up our prisons. They cannot apply to the Parole Board, because they cannot get on the offender behaviour courses that they have been required to undertake. Does he accept the view of the inspectorates that he has just mentioned, which is that that is completely unsustainable? In fact, does he not agree that it is literally a criminal waste of money?

Jack Straw: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Those offenders are not "cluttering up" prisons; they are there because they have been assessed as dangerous by the courts following legislation that we introduced in 2003. There is no entitlement for a prisoner who is on an IPP sentence to be released when his tariff expires. The prisoner has to show that it is safe to release him or her-they are mainly males. The responsibility for proving that it is safe to release the prisoner is on the prisoner. We make available a range of courses, but it is not about ticking boxes; it is about prisoners taking responsibility for themselves. There is no doubt about the effectiveness of the sentence. In my judgment, it is one of the measures that we have introduced that has considerably contributed to making this country much safer and to getting crime down.

Topical Questions

Rosie Cooper: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jack Straw: I would like to draw the House's attention to the publication that we issued yesterday, "Declarations of Interests: Guidance for Parliamentary election candidates", which was produced in response to a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on MPs' expenses and allowances. It follows consultation with the other parties and amendments to take account of their concerns. I hope that it has the full support of the House.

Rosie Cooper: Will the Justice Secretary indicate what action he is taking to give communities more of a say in the criminal justice system? In particular, will he say what work is being done in West Lancashire?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can. We now have community payback, which involves offenders in high-visibility jackets. It is popular with the public-they can now see community punishments taking place-and it is accepted by offenders as part of punishment. There are five such schemes taking place in my hon. Friend's area. There is the Far Cotton alley gates scheme, the Camp Hill lighting scheme, the Safer Lumbertubs initiative and many other projects, all of which are improving the quality of life for her constituents.

Peter Bone: It has been reported that Ian Huntley, who murdered two little girls, can claim £20,000 in compensation from the Ministry of Justice for having been attacked by a fellow inmate. Does the Secretary of State think that that is fair and just?

Jack Straw: There is no way in which I can prevent prisoners from making statements through their lawyers in the newspapers, but I can say, very emphatically, that any such claim would be vigorously and very thoroughly resisted. My sentiments are the same as those of the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the House as a whole. I also point out that we have taken active steps to restrict the availability of legal assistance to prisoners, because it was subject to abuse, and it is now being severely restricted.

Stephen Hepburn: Will the Justice Secretary commission fresh medical evidence on pleural plaques, because it has come to light that the medical evidence on which he relied in coming to his judgment on pleural plaques came from a professor who openly admits that he has never come into contact with a pleural plaques victim?

Jack Straw: We are always ready to look at further evidence, although it obviously has to come from those who are medically expert in this field. However, the evidence that we had to take into account was a report by the chief medical officer for England, along with a parallel report by the medical advisers to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

Alan Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that violence at Her Majesty's Prison Frankland has affected not only Huntley and other inmates, but prison officers? Can he tell us what steps are being taken to deal with violence and dangerous weapons in Frankland?

Jack Straw: First, I want to pay tribute in the House, as I have done privately in letters, to the three prison officers who have been injured, one of whom, Mr. Wilde, has been severely injured. Fortunately, such attacks on, and injuries to, prison officers are not frequent, but when they do take place, they are terrible for individuals, their families and their colleagues at work. They are also a reminder of the inherent danger that prison officers face, particularly in category A high-risk prisons. A lockdown is taking place at the moment-it takes two or three days in high-risk, high-category prisons. It involves going all the way through the prison searching for any kind of weapons. Other measures are also in place to ensure that those two incidents, which we believe are unrelated-but that is the subject of an investigation-do not happen again.

George Howarth: Given that, in recent years, overall crime rates have been falling, while the number of people in prison has been increasing, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the possibility of reducing the prison population by half, and what impact does he think that would have on overall crime rates?

Jack Straw: I know that it is a dream of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to get the prison population down to what it was in 1993-44,000 instead of 84,000.

Alan Duncan: By reducing crime!

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that they want to do it by linking it to a fall in crime. However, I am clear, and so is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that one of the reasons why we have been the first Government since the war to get crime consistently down, rather than up, is that we have been locking up serious, dangerous and persistent offenders for longer; they are being taken out of the system. That is how hon. Members' communities, and mine, have been made safe. Letting out 40,000 prisoners would be a way of making the country even more dangerous than when the Conservatives were last in power.

Andrew MacKay: Returning to the Secretary of State's admirably robust response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), will he confirm that this would be compensation culture gone absolutely mad, and will he also confirm that there are no conceivable circumstances in which a prisoner could receive compensation for violence-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we have got the gist of it.

Jack Straw: Were that to happen, of course it would be worthy of the description that the right hon. Gentleman has used. As I have said, however, all that has happened so far is that there has been a suggestion, apparently by the prisoner's lawyer, that he will seek compensation. I can tell the House as an absolute fact that that would be robustly and vigorously resisted by the Government, and we have absolutely no intention of making such compensation payments.

Brian Iddon: Cash-for-crash criminals and clipboard solicitors are causing our vehicle insurance premiums to rise astronomically. What action is my right hon. Friend's Department taking to try to prevent such cases from coming to court?

Jack Straw: We are greatly tightening up on legal aid. Also, the major report by Lord Justice Jackson on fundamental reforms to the way in which legal costs are assessed should deal with some of the abuses to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Evan Harris: Unlike in the United States, corporations and associations in this country are allowed to sue for libel rather than just for malicious falsehood. The Secretary of State's announcement this morning did not say that he was going to change that provision. Given the tendency of associations such as Nemesysco, Barclays, Tesco and the British Chiropractic Association to use our libel laws unjustly to restrict free speech, will he now consider such a change as part of libel law reform?

Jack Straw: The announcement that I made this morning related to the publication of the report of the working group on defamation, which included representatives from both sides of the issue, as it were. I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, although it is quite a complicated one. We are certainly happy to examine further his proposals, but I do not want to pre-empt the results of any such examination.

William Bain: Next year will represent the centenary of the passing of the very first Parliament Act. Would not a good way to mark that occasion be to do what is provided for in the preamble to the Act-to legislate for a fully elected second Chamber of Parliament?

Jack Straw: It would be a fine year in which to move towards a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. This House agreed on such a move in free votes in March 2007, and it has also been the subject of broad all-party agreement in two sets of proceedings involving cross-party groups. I hope that it can be achieved.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Secretary of State answer the substantive point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell)? Surely it cannot possibly be right that 2,400 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences who want to attend courses to address their reoffending behaviour are unable to do so. That cannot be either right or economic.

Jack Straw: The Prisons Minister-the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)-tells me that 69 per cent. of those prisoners have the opportunity to attend such courses. Following changes that I made in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that led to a minimum tariff of two years-so that people were not on imprisonment for public protection tariffs for such a short time that they could not do courses-we are now ensuring that there is a greater opportunity for people to do these courses. But I come back to the point that the responsibility for showing that prisoners are no longer dangerous and that it is safe to release them rests fairly and squarely with those prisoners, and not with the Prison Service.

Brian H Donohoe: On the question of the Libyan who was released early from prison north of the border, what discussions, if any, has my right hon. Friend had with our country cousins north of the border, given that it is now eight months after that man's release, and that we were told at the time that he had only three months to live?

Jack Straw: I have had no discussions with the Justice Secretary in Scotland about this. That is a separate jurisdiction; it made its own decision and must take responsibility for it.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Justice Secretary for the lockdown at Frankland prison in County Durham. Is he aware of recent similar incidents at young offenders institutions, whose prison officers are crying out for the tools to enable them to do their job properly? Will he conduct a thorough review of this issue to ensure that those prison officers can perform the tasks that we entrust them with?

Jack Straw: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I think that she is asking whether staves should be available to prison officers in young offenders institutions for under-18s. I received representations on that from YOI staff over about two years, and I conducted a review. This is quite a difficult issue, in terms of balance, and all the staff are agreed on that. In the event, I endorsed the existing policy, but I have looked into this very actively, and I promise her that it is a policy that has to be kept under active review.

Dari Taylor: Link workers are a primary source for prisoners on release, supporting their reintegration into the community. How are the Government supporting this group, ensuring that it is adequately resourced and not undermined?

Maria Eagle: We increasingly involve third sector and other organisations in offender management to make sure that proper arrangements are in place for those leaving prison, so that they do not fall down the cracks or between services and fail to get the support that they need. It is an increasing part of what we do.

David Simpson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the rules or legislation governing antisocial behaviour orders need to be looked at again in light of the serious percentage of reoffending taking place?

Jack Straw: We are always looking at ways in which we can tighten up the legislation on antisocial behaviour orders. Before ASBOs were introduced-by me as Home Secretary in 1998, as it happens-there was no provision in the criminal law for dealing with persistent antisocial behaviour. ASBOs have been a successful tool available to local communities, police and the courts in dealing with this behaviour. Where someone breaches an ASBO, they commit an offence with a maximum sentence of five years. What we wish to see is these full powers being better used by the courts.

James Duddridge: If a smug individual were to break a law, rule or regulation once, that is unfortunate; what advice would the Secretary of State give if they did so 37 times?

Jack Straw: It makes that individual, whoever they may be, a persistent offender. Whether a community punishment or a short sentence would be appropriate is, I think, open to question.  [Interruption.] I am therefore not surprised that the Liberal Democrats are opposing indeterminate sentences for public protection, which are, perhaps, what is needed.

Norman Baker: I am grateful -[Interruption.] I am very grateful indeed for the support from the Conservative Benches. May I ask the Minister this very simple question? Are the Government going to accede to the request by Lord Hutton of 27 January to release information relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly to the medical experts who have demanded it? Are they going to release that information?

Michael Wills: Unfortunately, I did not quite catch all of the hon. Gentleman's question. Insofar as I understood what it was about, the Government- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) is in a state of almost uncontrollable excitement.

Michael Wills: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, insofar as I understood the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is that the Ministry of Justice looks at each case on a case-by-case basis. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, we can always look at matters again, and we will do so, if necessary.

Edward Timpson: What is the Secretary of State doing to address concerns from professionals, practitioners and the public alike about the staff shortages and massive casework increases in the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, including the problem of having a period of up to five months during which there has been no allocation of any guardian in a case involving vulnerable children?

Jack Straw: I am not trying to excuse the situation, but may I gently point out that CAFCASS in England is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, while in Wales it is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government? I will certainly take up the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am aware of the pressure on CAFCASS, which has an impact, in turn, on the operation of the family courts, for which I am responsible.

Julie Kirkbride: Will the Secretary of State reassure my constituent whose relative was murdered by the Yorkshire Ripper many years ago that he will never be let out of prison, because of his heinous crimes?

Jack Straw: I would like to provide that reassurance. I have to say to the hon. Lady and the House that ultimately that decision would be for the Parole Board and the courts, and perhaps mental health tribunals. However, I say to her, and through her to her constituent, that all the evidence I have seen in this case-it is a great deal-suggests to me that there are no circumstances in which that man will be released.

John Hemming: Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the court can determine that an adult does not have the right to decide where she lives, on the basis of the opinion of an expert appointed by the Official Solicitor. Do Ministers believe that a psychologist or psychiatrist should be required for such an assessment, or would a social worker be sufficient?

Bridget Prentice: It is the job of the Court of Protection to make that assessment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The court will look in detail at the individual concerned and take a holistic approach to them. If it so wishes, it may choose to involve experts from across the piece, if appropriate. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has agreed with the president of the court that a review of its rules should take place, and that issue might be one of those that it considers.

UK Passports (Use in Dubai Murder)

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will report to the House on the investigation announced on 17 February by the Prime Minister into the use of counterfeit British passports in the killing of Mr. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on 19 January. The UK is continuing to support inquiries under way in a number of countries including in the United Arab Emirates itself. However, at the end of last week the Serious Organised Crime Agency reported to the Home Secretary on its investigation. Its report has now been studied by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and me, and was presented to the Cabinet this morning.
	In the past 24 hours I have spoken to the Foreign Ministers of the other countries whose passports were involved. Their investigations are continuing. It would not be right to release the report in full, for legal and other reasons, but it is right that the House should know a summary of the conclusions that SOCA has reached and the action that we will be taking in response.
	First, for the avoidance of any doubt, I should make it clear to the House that in the case of each of the 12 passport holders to whom SOCA spoke, it found no evidence to suggest that any of those individuals were anything other than wholly innocent victims of identity theft. Secondly-this should not need saying-I must add in the strongest possible terms that the UK had absolutely no advance knowledge of what happened in Dubai nor any involvement whatever in the killing.
	SOCA conducted an extremely professional investigation. The Israeli authorities met all the requests that SOCA made of them. SOCA was drawn to the conclusion that the passports used were copied from genuine British passports when handed over for inspection to individuals linked to Israel, either in Israel or in other countries. It found no link to any other country. Given that the operation was a very sophisticated one, in which high-quality forgeries were made, the Government judge it highly likely that the forgeries were made by a state intelligence service. Taking that together with other inquiries and the link to Israel established by SOCA, we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of British passports.
	The Government take this matter extremely seriously. Such misuse of British passports is intolerable. It presents a hazard to the safety of British nationals in the region. Also, it represents a profound disregard for the sovereignty of the UK. The fact that that was done by a country that is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury. No country or Government could stand by in such a situation.
	Israel is a democratic country, with remarkable achievements to its name, in a dangerous part of the world. That makes international co-operation even more important. Britain has worked and will continue to work closely with Israel on a range of issues, notably the Iranian nuclear threat, but that co-operation must be based on transparency and trust. The Government are therefore taking a number of steps, based on the evidence of what has occurred in this case, to make clear their deep unhappiness at what has happened, and to seek to ensure that such an abuse does not happen again.
	I met Foreign Minister Lieberman on 22 February. At that stage, our investigation was only just starting. I told him then of our deep concern about the incident, and made clear my expectation that Israel would co-operate with the investigation. I met Mr. Lieberman again in Brussels yesterday. I set out the findings of the SOCA report, our intended actions, and our determination to ensure that this affair is never repeated. I handed over a letter seeking a formal assurance from him that in the future the state of Israel would never be party to the misuse of British passports in such a way.
	Diplomatic work between Britain and Israel needs to be conducted according to the highest standards of trust. The work of our embassy in Israel and the Israeli embassy in London is vital to the co-operation between our countries. So is the strategic dialogue between our countries. Those ties are important, and we want them to continue. However, I have asked for a member of the embassy of Israel to be withdrawn from the UK as a result of this affair, and that is taking place.
	Members will be concerned about the fate of the British passport holders involved. As one of them said, to go to bed as a citizen and wake up as a wanted terrorist is shocking. We have provided consular assistance for the 12 people whose identities and passports were misused. As part of that, we offered them all new biometric passports, which are being rolled out to the whole British population and, being considerably more difficult to counterfeit, should give them the confidence that they need that they can still travel safely on their British passports. Eleven of the 12 have so far been issued with new biometric passports.
	To alert other British nationals to the risk that their passports might be misused in the same way, I am today amending our travel advice on Israel to make clear the potential risk, and to set out the steps that people can take to minimise that risk.
	The middle east is not a place for woolly or wishful thinking. The Israeli people crave and deserve legitimacy and security. The United Kingdom will not compromise its support for that, but the actions in this case are completely unacceptable, and they must stop.
	I commend the statement to the House.

William Hague: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for setting out the measures that are to be taken. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition agree with them. We should all regret having to take such measures against a country that is a friend of Britain and with whose diplomats we enjoy good relations, but we cannot permit cloning of, interference with or misuse of British passports by another state. If the Foreign Secretary is truly satisfied, on the basis of all the evidence he has seen, that that has happened in this case, it is right for Britain to take measures both to rectify the situation and to show that it is unacceptable to us.
	Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there was a similar case in 1987, when it was discovered that Israel had forged British passports for intelligence operations? On that occasion, the then Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, assured the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, that it would not happen again. It seems that those assurances have not been upheld.
	On the results of the investigation, we welcome the fact that Israel co-operated with the Serious Organised Crime Agency in its inquiries. The Foreign Secretary said that he had spoken to the Foreign Ministers of the other countries whose passports were allegedly involved. Can he tell us anything about their own investigations? Can he tell us when he expects those investigations to be concluded, and whether he expects any of those other countries to take similar action in parallel with the United Kingdom?
	On the need to prevent this from happening again, the Foreign Secretary will know that as soon as the use of British passports was uncovered last month, we argued that the Government should seek a specific assurance that Israel would never sanction the misuse of British passports in any future operation. We therefore welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has now formally requested such an assurance from his Israeli counterpart. Will he make it clear, however, that it is not just a question of an assurance that no future counterfeiting will take place, but a question of an assurance that there will be no further use of any British passports that may already have been copied? That last assurance will be of particular concern to British travellers who may fear that other versions of their passports are in circulation.
	Did the Foreign Secretary receive any indication from the Israeli Foreign Minister that such assurances could or would be given, and will he intend, if they are received, to change the Foreign Office travel advice relating to Israel accordingly?
	The Foreign Secretary said that the biometric passports introduced four years ago are more difficult to counterfeit. Does he consider these new passports to be as invulnerable to counterfeiting as it is possible to make them, or will the Government review whether any other steps are needed to protect the integrity of British passports? Is there any suggestion that British passports are more vulnerable than those of other countries, including other EU countries?
	Finally, on the effect of this on relations with the United Arab Emirates, can the Foreign Secretary say any more about what assistance SOCA and other British authorities have provided to the Dubai authorities at their request and whether this is continuing? Has he had any indication from the UAE Government that more stringent rules will be applied to the issuing of visas to British citizens visiting or resident in the country?
	There are many issues on which Britain and Israel quite rightly work closely together: a two-state solution to the middle east peace process, diplomatic action over Iran's nuclear programme and the expansion of trade between our countries to the benefit of all our citizens. But such relations and co-operation must be able to take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust, and it is necessary for that trust to be reaffirmed so that relations can be as productive as they should be. We therefore think that the measures taken by the Government are right and that the Israeli Foreign Minister, as he considers the Foreign Secretary's letter, should know that it comes with united support across this House.

David Miliband: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. As the House knows, there is publicly available history here, dating back to the 1980s, upon which it is reasonable to reflect in the light of the incident that has most recently taken place. It is right to be extremely cautious when saying anything about the investigations that are being conducted by other countries. They are continuing, as I said in my statement, and I did not press the Foreign Ministers to whom I spoke yesterday, and this morning actually, for details. All of them were clear that these investigations were being conducted by independent authorities in their own countries and needed to be carried to their conclusion. That is right. They did not give me a time frame for when they would conclude, either. It is right to make it clear to the House that no country had as many passports involved in this sorry affair as the United Kingdom; no other country was even close to double digits.
	We are clear that we keep our travel advice up to date, so the response that we seek from the Israeli Foreign Minister in reply to my request for a specific assurance will of course affect what our travel advice about the situation and its consequences.
	In respect of biometric passports, the Government believe that they are as invulnerable as possible, which was, I think, the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. They are certainly not more vulnerable than passports from the rest of the EU. The link to biometric fingerprinting is obviously important in this case in strengthening the security of the passports.
	Finally, on the UAE, its investigation is continuing. It is too early for the Foreign Minister of the UAE to have given me any suggestion of a tightening of his visa regime but it is important that we continue to support the UAE in its investigation, which it is carrying out in an extremely professional way.

Edward Davey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me an advance copy of it. Now that SOCA has concluded that British passports were indeed misused by Israel, may I join him in expressing our deep concern? It is indeed intolerable that a close ally should treat Britain and British nationals in this way. I fully support the proportionate measures proposed by the Foreign Secretary today. It is difficult to get the correct balance when dealing with a state such as Israel that is a close friend of this country, but I believe that he has judged it well.
	I have three areas for brief questions. First, will Ministers and SOCA work with other countries whose sovereignty may have been breached by Israel on these occasions to assist them in their investigations? In answer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Foreign Secretary touched on this, but is Britain offering our support to those countries with their investigations?
	Secondly, given that it is alleged that these counterfeit passports were used in an extra-judicial killing by Israeli agents, has the gravity of that misuse been weighed in the balance in the Government's response? Thirdly, and more widely, although I strongly agree with the action that the Foreign Secretary has taken today, may I invite him to reflect on how the expulsion of a diplomat in response to passport fraud, serious though that is, might look to Palestinians in Gaza, the west bank and elsewhere, who have been the victims of more serious breaches of international law by Israel? Given the action that he has taken today, can he assure me that when it comes to policy issues such as the blockade of Gaza and illegal settlements on the west bank, the Government are willing to back stronger condemnation of Israel, as President Obama and other EU countries now appear willing to do? We are right to feel like wounded friends of Israel over these passports, but we must also be ready to be more critical friends of Israel over matters that are harming the peace process and are also not in Israel's long-term interests.

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who speaks for the official Opposition, for their support. It is important that a united message goes out from across the political parties about the necessary nature of the measures that we have taken today, significant though they are.
	On the hon. Gentleman's questions, first I should say that, when asked, SOCA is available to help partner agencies around the world. Secondly, the matter of gravity that the SOCA investigation was looking into was confined to the passport counterfeiting, cloning and so on; SOCA was not conducting an investigation into the alleged murder in Dubai. SOCA's investigation was narrowly construed, but none the less it has wide-ranging ramifications alongside the other inquiries that have been taking place.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is my very strong view that engagement with the people and Government of Israel is essential if we are to convey to them the concern we have about issues such as Gaza, which he raised. The situation in Gaza was discussed yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels as part of a wide-ranging discussion following the Quartet meeting with the Quartet envoy, Tony Blair, yesterday. So the measures that we have taken today, including those relating to a member of the Israeli embassy, relate to the investigations that have taken place in the run-up to this announcement.

Gerald Kaufman: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the first western statesman to take specific action against the serial crimes committed by the Israeli Government? However, he surely must recognise that anybody passing through the corrupt passport control and airport security system at Ben Gurion airport is liable to have her or his passport cloned and abused. If he wishes to have any further information about my own personal experiences of those corrupt systems, I shall pass it on to him.

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend has certainly added to the gravity of the situation with the issue that he has raised, and I certainly would like to see whatever information he has available. I think that not only the measures that we have announced but the advice that we have given on the Foreign Office website as of now will provide a degree of warning and protection for any traveller to Israel and will allow them to mitigate the risks that they might face.

Iain Duncan Smith: Like the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), I consider myself a friend of Israel, but on this particular occasion I think that we have a legitimate grievance. May I take the Foreign Secretary back to his statement? He has made much of his discussions with the Israeli Foreign Minister, in which it seems that most of this pressure has been about what will happen in the future. Surely what we need to establish from the Israeli Government is an acceptance that they were involved in this incident, not just a suggestion that they should not be engaged in similar incidents in the future. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to press his counterpart in Israel to admit at some stage that the Israeli Government were involved in this before admitting that they will not do anything similar in future?

David Miliband: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I can say to him that in my meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister-also in Brussels, as it happens, last month-I pressed him very strongly on the circumstances of this incident. He said-he has said this publicly-that he had no information relating to the incident. Although I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, I am sure he will also recognise that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in the UAE into the alleged murder that is the primary focus of the legal side of this affair. It is helpful, though, for him to have made his view clear about the seriousness of this issue. Israel has a huge amount to gain from adherence to international law and international obligations and it is very important that a message goes out that we expect that in all cases.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to clarify whether the diplomat leaving London will be selected by the Israeli ambassador or whether a specific person is being expelled whose fingerprints have been found in relation to this matter? If it is the latter, this is a very limp response. If the person is guilty of being part of this fraudulent dealing with our passports, the House should be told.

David Miliband: As I said very clearly in my statement, the request for an individual to leave-and the decision of the Israelis to accede to that request-was made by us. It was linked, precisely as I have said, in the work that we have done to the investigations that have taken place. We were very clear with the Israeli authorities about the basis on which we were asking for an individual to leave.

Douglas Hogg: What the Foreign Secretary has described is a criminal conspiracy to facilitate murder, probably contrary to UK domestic law under the terrorism legislation. That being so, has the Foreign Secretary considered what officials not in the Israeli Government or elsewhere, not covered by diplomatic privilege, may be liable to criminal sanctions before the UK courts? If he has, what steps does he intend to take to pursue that matter, for example through the issuing of international warrants of arrest?

David Miliband: As we have discussed in this House many times, the procedures for arrest-never mind for prosecution-are not ones that are in the hands of the Government. The measures that we have taken in this case have obviously been carefully weighed and walked through with legal advisers as well as with others who were conducting the investigation. I think that that is the right basis on which to leave it.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend, and given the fact that this extra-judicial murder was an affront to British interests and British subjects, it was quite inevitable. However, this action was not aberrant-it was a measure of the impunity and illegality with which Israel acts. At this very moment, as we speak, 1.5 million Palestinians are illegally trapped, blockaded and destitute in Gaza, and in the west bank their land and their water are stolen daily and defenceless children are shot. When are we going to take this forward on a greater level and condemn more actively than we do the wider actions of an ally that is rapidly becoming a rogue and pariah state?

David Miliband: I am pleased to be able to say that we discuss often, in this House and elsewhere, the situation in the middle east and, specifically, the situation in Gaza as well as that in the west bank. One has to choose one's words and cases carefully. My hon. and learned Friend is right that settlement building, if that is what he was referring to, is not only a roadblock on the road to any kind of peace settlement or Palestinian state, but illegal. It is contrary to international law and that is something that we make very clear. We should continue to recognise that there is a strong British national interest in a resolution of the conflict at the heart of the middle east that is based on a Palestinian state that is able to live alongside Israel but that is also based on Arab states being able to normalise their relations with Israel on the basis of the Arab peace initiative, which was published in 2002.

Edward Garnier: The point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made is just as important even if one is not dealing with an alleged killing. The courts of England send people with no previous convictions to prison for passport forgery and their sentences are measured in years. What does this story tell us about the integrity of the Government's proposals for identity cards? Does it not undermine the Government's case?

David Miliband: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised that point, because it makes a very strong case precisely for the national identity register that we propose. I think that many people, if they can be diverted from the issue at hand for a moment, will see that the determination to have a national identity register precisely fits into the sort of concerns that people have about identity theft. Actually, the case is made for the proposal that the Government have put forward, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider his opposition to it.

Jeremy Corbyn: In his statement, the Foreign Secretary said that
	"we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of British passports."
	That being said, why is only one diplomat being removed and why not much higher up the chain? Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the Israeli Government were culpable in the act of deception over the passports and the murder, or does he believe that some quasi-state authority in Israel undertook it in the name of that country?

David Miliband: I make no allegations about quasi-state authorities in this case. Let me address the point that we should have moved, as my hon. Friend put it, higher up the chain. He is saying that we should either have expelled the Israeli ambassador or have withdrawn our ambassador from Israel. I do not believe that that would have been the right thing to do. In fact, it would have been a retrograde thing to do, because it is vital that we are able to express with passion, commitment and principle to the Government of Israel the feelings from across the House and within the Government. It is essential that we are able to do so in this country and in Israel itself. The last thing that we should be advocating is the isolation of Israel; we do not advocate the isolation of Iran and we do not advocate the isolation of Israel either. That would be quite the wrong lesson to draw from this affair. However, it is important that my hon. Friend recognises that the decision that we have taken about this case and about the withdrawal of a member of the embassy's staff is designed to be targeted and effective, and I believe it will be.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State understand that his statement today displayed remarkable restraint and fastidiousness? He described the operation as "sophisticated" and said there was "compelling" evidence, in relation to passports, of the involvement of a state intelligence agency. From that, he concluded that
	"Israel was responsible for the misuse of British passports."
	What factors stand in the way of his reaching a similar conclusion regarding the killing in Dubai itself?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said that the steps I was taking were unprecedented, and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) says that we have been fastidious, so I look forward to their arguing that out. Perhaps we have struck the right balance. On the alleged murder in Dubai, the investigations are continuing and we wait to see what the UAE authorities conclude on that matter.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement and the action that he has taken, as well as the speed with which SOCA has completed its report. I appreciate that aspects of the report ought to remain confidential, but will he confirm that they have been shared with the head of the Identity and Passport Service and the head of the UK Border Agency?

David Miliband: I want to check the details of the internal sharing, but I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend on that matter.

Bernard Jenkin: The Foreign Secretary sought an assurance from the Israeli Foreign Minister. Does he expect such an assurance to be given?

David Miliband: I very much hope that such an assurance will be given and I very much hope that it will be given soon.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which referred to the "killing" in Dubai, whereas the heading on the Annunciator referred to the alleged "murder". I seek assurances that the Government are not trying to signal some ambiguity as to the criminal character of state-sponsored assassination. He has told us what Foreign Minister Lieberman told him yesterday, denying any knowledge. Does he believe Mr. Lieberman? If not, how can we believe any assurances that Mr. Lieberman gives in future?

David Miliband: I believe that in Israel the system for governance of the intelligence agencies is rather different from the system in this country, as the Foreign Minister explained. The Foreign Ministry does not have the line of responsibility for foreign intelligence in the way that it does in this country, where the Secret Intelligence Service is responsible to me. That is not how the system works in Israel, and I take at face value exactly what the Foreign Minister said to me a month ago and yesterday.

Angus MacNeil: In 2004, relations between New Zealand and Israel were put on hold after a robust reaction from New Zealand to Israeli sovereignty violations. In 2005, the then Israeli Foreign Minister apologised to New Zealand. Will the UK be demanding from Israel the same respect it showed New Zealand, especially given that UK passports were used to facilitate a murder? Will the removal from the embassy be random or specific? Are the people to be chosen by Israel or by the UK?

David Miliband: We actually answered that earlier-in the second question. It is not a random selection, and it is made not by the Government of Israel but by us.
	If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the 2004 case, he will find some significant differences from this case. I think that the information that I have seen about it is available in the public domain. However, he will see clearly from my statement the degree of concern that we have, and the measures we have taken.

Rob Marris: I welcome the Government's robust action and I oppose the isolation of Israel. Nevertheless, why does the UK continue to regard successive Governments of Israel as friends and allies of the UK, when they repeatedly demonstrate-as in this passports case-that they pay little or no attention to the UK and we appear to have no real influence whatever over Israel?

David Miliband: I am not entirely with my hon. Friend in his description. We have some strong shared interests with Israel and we do some important work together. However, in cases when Israel flouts the friendship between our countries, it is vital that the Government speak up without fear or favour, which is what we have done in this case.

Julian Lewis: I think we can rest assured that even Mossad will think twice before trying to steal the identity of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman).
	Given the importance of the proportionate response that the Foreign Secretary has rightly outlined to the House, how was it that the BBC, nearly two hours before he made his statement to the House, put up a news item headed, "Britain to expel Israeli diplomat", quoting diplomatic sources? Should that not have been said in the House first?

David Miliband: I am glad to have the opportunity to tell the hon. Gentleman that of course the House should be the first to hear. I have been assured that there is no suggestion of the Foreign Office being the source, and I am determined that when we have something to say it should be said here first.

Martin Linton: I commend my right hon. Friend on his decisive action in expelling a so far unnamed diplomat from the Israeli embassy, although he is of course welcome to name him. I have the diplomatic list, from the ambassador to the defence attaché, who, to refer to the previous question, just happens to be a Colonel Kaufman.
	May I urge my right hon. Friend to take similar action every time Israel disregards the law, whether it is by building settlements, building the wall in occupied territory, the annexation of east Jerusalem, targeting civilians in Gaza or the use of human shields?

David Miliband: We are clear that it is important that Israel has diplomats in this country. We think it is important that we are able to engage with them in a way that allows them to reflect in their own society, and their own country, the degree of passion in this country. I assure my hon. Friend that on the issues he has raised we speak very clearly to the Israeli embassy as well as to the Israeli people.

Peter Bone: Could the Foreign Secretary be clearer? He has been very evasive about the person who will be expelled. Could the Foreign Secretary say what position the person held? Did he have any relationship to Mossad?

David Miliband: I am not going to give any further information about the individual concerned, and I am not going to describe anything further about the role that he played. I have been very clear about the basis on which he was chosen. That is the right thing to do.

Points of Order

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you prior notice of it, and I have given prior notice to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), whom it concerns. There is, as you know, a planning application in my constituency for intensive dairy production at a place called Nocton. It has aroused intense feelings and opposition, part of which is founded on animal welfare considerations. The hon. Member for Carlisle tabled early-day motion 1037 which addresses the issue both in general and in particular, mentioning my constituency as the site, or at least that is the implication. He did not discuss this with me in advance; I am sure that he intended no discourtesy. I do not think that there is guidance on the matter, so I am looking only to guidance for the future.
	May I suggest that in future, when an hon. Member tables an early-day motion which affects another Member's constituency directly, the Member tabling the early-day motion should inform the other Member in advance, very much as he or she would if he or she were going to the other Member's constituency? I do not for one moment challenge the hon. Gentleman's right to table the early-day motion, but it would have been helpful and, I suggest, courteous for me to have been told in advance.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. Clearly, as he indicated in what he said, the matter is of specific relevance to his constituency. The House is well aware of the conventions about visiting other Members' constituencies, and about mentioning each other in debate. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly observes, we do not have a practice on giving notice about tabling motions, but he has made his point very effectively. I know that others will thereby be conscious of the matter.

Angus MacNeil: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be patient. His patience will be rewarded in due course.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is in his place. He is not obliged to respond, but if he would like to do so, he is welcome.

Eric Martlew: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is a barrister, but I was hoping that you would find me innocent of the crime, Mr. Speaker. I did not mention the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I did not specifically mention his constituency. I referred to Lincolnshire; I did not know the site was in his constituency. The precedent that could be set is that if any hon. Member tabled a question about any constituency, he would have to tell the hon. Member concerned. I hope that you will find me innocent.

Mr. Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Member for Carlisle is that I have sought to respond to the point of order from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in measured terms, just as he spoke in measured terms, and so did the hon. Member for Carlisle. I do not view the matter, if I may say so, in terms either of guilt or of innocence. The situation that has arisen is quite specific, a repetition of which could occur. Rather than formulate a new rule or piece of guidance on the hoof, I would prefer to rely on the general good sense and natural courtesy of right hon. and hon. Members.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to catch your eye before the Foreign Secretary had left. In his answer to me, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had specifically said, with reference to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who the person to be expelled was. In fact, he did not. At 1.52 pm the BBC news site said that it was likely to be the London head of the Mossad secret service. I got more information from the 1.52 pm release from the BBC than I did from the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago. May I ask that we are told first, in the House from the Dispatch Box, if somebody is to be expelled from the UK?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I endorse what he and other right hon. and hon. Members have already said on the matter. In fairness, I think the Foreign Secretary, who is no longer in his place, made very clear his own belief and insistence that matters of public importance should first be disclosed or reported to the House, rather than to the media. It is fair to say-I will deal with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman made-that Ministers cannot be held responsible for what is speculated about in the media. If there is specific evidence-

Julian Lewis: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will come to the hon. Gentleman, who is in a state of overweening excitement.
	If there is specific evidence that something has been disclosed externally first, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) knows that I would regard that as an extremely serious matter. I do not think this is quite such a case. I note what he said; those on the Treasury Bench will also have noted what he said.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I quote briefly from the BBC posting at 13.52, which has been referred to? It says:
	"BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen said the person to be expelled is likely to be the London head of Israel's secret service, Mossad. Diplomatic sources stressed the British government has stopped short of accusing Israel of the murder."
	That is a fairly clear indication that that report was written as a result of conversations with someone connected with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Speaker: I still believe, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, that we are in the realms of speculation. We have not got a concrete finding. If I had not known him for 26 years and five months, I would think that he was trying to continue the debate, but as I have known him for 26 years and five months-

Julian Lewis: Name the days.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot name the number of days, but as I have known the hon. Gentleman for 26 years and five months I know that he would not indulge in misbehaviour of that kind.

Bob Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Later today, under items 9 and 10 on the Order Paper, the House is due to vote without debate, under Standing Order No. 118(6), on two orders. They are local government structural changes to create unitary authorities in Exeter and Norwich. They were considered yesterday afternoon by a Delegated Legislation Committee, and yesterday evening in the other place. In the other place, an extraordinary thing occurred: on the Norwich order, a motion to regret and delay the matter was passed after a Division; and on the Exeter order, the Government accepted the motion put forward to delay its implementation without seeking to divide the House.
	Given that there can be no debate, is it in order for this House to be asked to vote on those two orders when it is not now clear whether the Government intend to proceed with them, or to delay them in accordance with the stance that they adopted in the upper House? Could we at least ask that the Minister be brought to this House to explain the Government's position before we vote on something that may turn out to be a false premise?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised his point of order with all the force and lucidity that one would expect from a practising barrister, but I fear that I am going to have to disappoint him somewhat when I say that what happens in another place is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman vents his displeasure at the fact that the Government have tabled the matters upon which the House can vote but which will not be open to debate, but that is a matter for the Government and not for me. It may be that he is putting in a bid for an increase in the powers of the Speaker, but as things stand I have no such power.

Peter Bone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew to the attention of this House the fact that those orders might be of doubtful vires. How is it possible to get that on the record?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just very pithily done so.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Sustainability of Livestock Farming and Food Production (Strategy)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Peter Ainsworth, supported by Mr. John Gummer, Mr. David Amess, Alan Simpson, Dr. Nick Palmer and Andrew George, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare and implement a strategy to improve the sustainability of livestock farming and the sustainability of the consumption of livestock produce; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed (Bill 94) .

Fire Safety (Schools)

Motion for leave to  bring in  a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jim Cunningham: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the compulsory installation of automatic fire sprinklers in all new-build educational establishments; and for connected purposes.
	The purpose of the Bill is simple: all new-build nursery, primary and secondary schools, academies and technology colleges should be fitted with sprinkler systems in order to reduce the damage caused by fire and to save lives. I am aware that this is a very topical issue. The Welsh Assembly has passed the Legislative Competence (Housing) (Fire Safety) Order 2010, which proposes the installation of fire sprinklers in all new residential premises in Wales. There was clear support for that in the Assembly. There is also a Bill going through the other place-Lord Harrison's Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill.
	Approximately 1,400 schools in the UK are damaged by fire each year-roughly 20 schools per week. That is only the reported figure; there may be many smaller fires that go unreported. The Arson Prevention Bureau states that almost a third of school fires occur during the day, putting the safety of staff and pupils at risk. According to the 2007 figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government, 42 per cent. of the fires in that year were arson. It is estimated that fewer than 200 schools of the 28,000 are fitted with sprinklers. According to the Department for Communities and Local Government, the cost of school fires stood at £58 million from 2000 to 2004, with the total cost estimated by the National Union of Teachers to be in the region of £100 million. In 2006, six fires resulted in damage of £1 million each. That is enough to employ a substantial number of new teachers and provide new building facilities.
	Fire causes untold damage to school buildings and facilities. We can all recall examples of school fires in our own constituencies that have caused great damage. As I said, the true cost is estimated to be about £100 million per year. However, fires also have many serious knock-on effects such as necessitating the hire of temporary accommodation for staff and pupils. The National Foundation for Educational Research estimates that the education of approximately 90,000 children is disrupted each year by school fires and that those from disadvantaged backgrounds are most likely to be affected. Coursework can be lost and exams postponed due to fire. It can lead to a drop in morale among staff and pupils. It can have an impact on those in the wider community who use the facilities for adult education or sports, for example.
	The published Government guidance for fire safety in schools, "Building Bulletin 100: Design for Fire Safety in Schools", states that
	"all new schools should have fire sprinklers installed except for a few very low risk schools",
	subject to a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The value of sprinkler systems has been applauded by the Government as a weapon against arson. To quote from "Building Bulletin 100",
	"Sprinkler systems installed in buildings can reduce the risk to life and significantly reduce the degree of damage caused by fire."
	That is a welcome statement, but installation is not currently compulsory. Government statistics state that 70 per cent. of new-build schools are fitted with fire sprinklers, but it is not a legal requirement. Although "Building Bulletin 100" is to be commended for the importance that it attaches to sprinklers, it is not enough for the Government merely to expect new schools to be fitted with sprinklers; it should be mandatory for all schools.
	The figures for 2007 show that 58 per cent. of school fires were accidental. That means that a school classed as being at low risk from arson attacks would still be at a high risk from accidental fires. In my constituency, for example, the west midlands fire service reported a 100 per cent. increase in accidental school fires in 2008-09. They could have been caused by many factors, such as an electrical fault. We need to ensure that all schools are as safe as possible for our children and to protect against all types of fire, accidental or deliberate. Fire sprinklers would help to achieve that.
	It is for local authorities to determine their policy on fitting sprinklers. However, while some local authorities, such as Coventry city council in my constituency, have a clear policy of fitting sprinklers in new schools, some do not. There is no unified stance across local authorities. There is also a worrying trend that private finance initiative projects need not comply with Government guidance on this issue, as they do not come under local authority jurisdiction. For example, in Coventry, there was recently a fire at Woodway Park school. The building is derelict, but it took 60 firefighters to fight the blaze. Crucially, the PFI project next door, Grace academy, has just reopened after a fire that cost £15 million. That school does not have sprinklers. One must argue that if one school can burn down, there is an equal risk to the school next door. I do not believe that the Government envisaged PFI projects opting out of the guidance, so there needs to be a mandatory requirement.
	There are many benefits associated with fire sprinklers. They reduce deaths; there have been no fire deaths in UK buildings fitted with a fully maintained sprinkler system. Sprinklers act within three to five minutes of a fire starting and help control and contain it in a small area of a building. They improve firefighter safety, as the fire is controllable. Fires are smaller and more controlled, which limits the rebuilding costs. Recent research estimates that property damage has been reduced by 80 per cent. where a sprinkler is fitted. They also have environmental benefits, as they use less water to tackle fires. It is estimated that fire hoses uses 1,000 litres a minute, whereas fire sprinklers use only 60 litres per head per minute. Water is also used more efficiently, as sprinklers act earlier.
	My Bill would make a simple change that would have a huge impact on schools' fire safety. Schools should be one of the safest places for my constituents and residents around the country, and my Bill would help achieve that. Powered sprinklers are a simple, efficient way to increase fire safety in schools. They minimise the property damage caused by fire and dramatically reduce the risk to life. Many organisations, such as the west midlands fire service and the Chief Fire Officers Association support this Bill for the mandatory installation of fire sprinklers. I commend it to the House and thank the west midlands fire service and everybody associated with it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mr. Brian Jenkins, Mr. Ian McCartney, Annette Brooke and Rosie Cooper present the Bill.
	Mr. Jim Cunningham accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed (Bill 93).

Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions)  Bill [ Lords]

Considered in Committee

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Application of section 2

David Lidington: I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
	This is a probing amendment. As the Bill is currently drafted, clause 4(3) limits the application of the offences defined in clause 2(1) and (2) to British nationals and companies alone when the alleged offence relates to actions outside the United Kingdom rather than to those on UK soil. My amendment would remove that limitation and extend liability equally to people and companies that were not British and that had committed the offences defined in clause 2.
	My question to the Minister is this: why have the Government chosen to include the limitation in clause 4(3) of the Bill? It is conceivable that the offences defined in the Bill could be committed by people who are resident here but who are not British citizens. Plenty of people who live here are legal but temporary residents and others have indefinite leave to remain; there are Commonwealth citizens; European Union nationals in Britain exercising their rights under the treaty of Rome; and some who have always been resident in Northern Ireland identify themselves as Irish rather than British citizens under the terms of the Belfast agreement. All those people could-hypothetically-commit one of the offences defined in the Bill, but they would seem to be exempt from prosecution in respect of an offence committed outside the UK, whereas their next-door neighbour committing the same offence could, on my reading of the Bill, be caught by it and convicted.
	Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to get the Minister to elucidate the purpose of that exclusion and to see whether the Government believe it is justified and whether they are prepared to review it.

William Cash: I share my hon. Friend's concern. He said that it is a probing amendment, but of course, in the context of the Bill, which comes from the House of Lords and is now in its final stages, the Minister's answer will have to be definitive; otherwise, it will not be a probing amendment and it will be made very rapidly.
	The measure seems extraordinary, because clause 4(2) states:
	"Section 2(2) applies to assistance, encouragement and inducements in the United Kingdom or elsewhere"
	and clause 4(3) confines the application to conduct that arises under clause 2(1)
	"and to assistance, encouragement and inducements"
	that arise under clause 2(2).
	However, "conduct" arises only in respect of clause 2(1) and the other matters-
	"assistance, encouragement and inducements"-
	apply only in respect of clause 2(2).
	We are often accused-particularly those of us who are lawyers-of being rather pedantic, but the truth is that legislation is about law. I am not suggesting that the Minister would do this in the context of the debate, but it would seem rather absurd to accuse us of being either pedantic or pernickety when we draw attention to inconsistencies. There are strange aspects to the Bill, and given its object, I concur with what my hon. Friend said. I look forward to both an explanation and a definitive answer from the Minister, because we are in the later stages of our consideration of the Bill, and what he says may determine what we do after Committee stage.

Chris Bryant: I understand the nature of the argument made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), but I want to explain why I think he is wrong.
	Clause 2(1) applies to conduct in the United Kingdom or elsewhere-that is about conduct-and clause 2(2) applies to
	"assistance, encouragement and inducements in the United Kingdom or elsewhere."
	However, clause 4(3) applies to what happens outside the United Kingdom. Although it is perfectly legitimate for us to extend the provisions that we make for British people who engage in such activity outside the United Kingdom, creating an offence for people who are not British and who are from other parts of the world, over whom we therefore have no jurisdiction, would be inappropriate. Article 9 of the convention on cluster munitions, on which all our legislation has been based, obliges states parties to impose penal sanctions to prevent any prohibited activity from being
	"undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control."
	Obviously, the rest of the world is not under our jurisdiction or control. That is why we have not sought to act against foreigners abroad. We are acting against British people abroad, and against anybody in the UK, but not against foreigners abroad.

David Drew: That is at the nub of the point that I raised on Second Reading. Things are not quite as simple as the Minister makes them sound. Bosnia is a classic example; in that case, cluster munitions were used by British forces, and were inevitably transferred to other forces because of where those munitions ended up. Where would we be if the Bosnians chose to use those munitions, given that we are entirely responsible for that situation? I would be happy to be told that negotiations will ensue. The Minister is looking quizzical, but that is a real-life case; cluster munitions are still there, and could be used by a third party.

Chris Bryant: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right on that last point about there being cluster munitions that could be used by a third party there. We are destroying all our stockpiles, full stop. That will all be done by the end of 2013. We are moving forward to try to make sure that all countries sign up to and ratify the convention, so that cluster munitions become a thing of the past. It would be a step too far, and not a step that the convention requires us to take, to legislate for those who are not British and not operating in the United Kingdom.

David Lidington: I understand the Minister's argument, but surely it leads us towards the following perhaps unlikely, but still possible, hypothetical situation. Two people live next door to each other in a British city. Both go abroad, commit one of the prohibited actions defined in the Bill, and return to Britain. As the action took place overseas, the British citizen could still be prosecuted, but his next-door neighbour, who is a British resident but of a different nationality, could not. That seems to introduce a contradiction into the Bill.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman rather gave away his argument, because he said at the beginning of his comments, "It's rather unlikely, but I suppose it's theoretically hypothetical." I am not very good at dealing with a "theoretically hypothetical."

William Cash: I will not deal with a theoretical, a hypothetical or a speculative; as may be judged from my demeanour, I will go straight to the issue on which the Minister and I have had so many disputes-the European Union. In the United Kingdom, which is a member of the European Union, the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has set out could easily arise. The Minister has repeatedly asserted the virtues of measures such as the European arrest warrant. There is a thing called aiding and abetting, and there is the question of accessories, too. A whole range of criminal law considerations can arise in relation to matters of the kind that we are discussing. The provisions deal with questions relating to offences-that is what clause 2 is all about. Those offences are serious. Indeed, a person guilty of an offence
	"is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years",
	so we are dealing with very serious matters. Will the Minister confirm that there is indeed a problem regarding the European Union?

Chris Bryant: No, of course I will not. The important point is that many other countries are already signatories. If a French person lived next door to a British person in the UK, and went to another country and engaged in the use of cluster munitions, he would be offending under French legislation. That is the general way in which all the conventions have proceeded. That is precisely the process that we adopted for the Landmines Act 1998, and there have not been significant problems in that case. Clause 3(3) is a similar, parallel, sort of arrangement, implementing precisely what was in the Ottawa convention.

Edward Davey: I think that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has a point. If someone is permanently resident in the UK, even though they are a foreign national, they are under British jurisdiction in the UK and have British permission to stay in the UK the whole time. Is the Minister saying that it is legally impossible for us to continue that jurisdiction when they travel abroad and then return to the UK? Surely that cannot be the case.

Chris Bryant: For the most part, when a non-British national goes abroad and breaks the law in another country, obviously it is for the laws of that country to deal with them, and in the vast majority of cases, that is precisely what would happen. There is an issue, obviously, because some countries are signatories and others are not and have no intention of being state parties. I honestly suggest to the hon. Gentleman, however, that this is not the big problem that he thinks it is.

William Cash: rose-

Chris Bryant: I will give way one final time to the hon. Gentleman.

William Cash: This is the Committee stage-and it is on the Floor of the House, too-so it is important that we get these things completely right. I have to say that, again, I dispute what the Minister has said. He referred to the legislation on land mines, but he, above all Members of the House, will know that that long predated the European arrest warrant. That is the reason why, I suspect, the Bill has not taken sufficient account of the legislation that currently applies.

Chris Bryant: indicated dissent.

William Cash: The Minister shakes his head, but I think he said that the land mines legislation was enacted in-

Chris Bryant: 1998.

William Cash: So it predates the European arrest warrant, which means my point remains. The situation I have in mind could easily be affected by that new European arrest warrant, so there is a problem and the Minister is not addressing it-he is simply saying that we are wrong, without understanding that problem.

Edward Davey: rose-

Chris Bryant: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Edward Davey: I do not believe the issue has anything to do with the European arrest warrant; it relates to whether British courts and British law can have jurisdiction abroad over permanent British residents who are not British nationals. This issue is directly relevant not only to the Bill but, in a way, to all aspects of law where Britain has decided to exercise jurisdiction in foreign countries in relation to British citizens-for example, when British citizens have gone abroad and committed sex offences. Such issues must have been considered before, so the Minister must be able to get some sort of briefing and guidance on this. If other legislation has dealt with the problem of international jurisdiction, how is it being dealt with in the Bill?

Chris Bryant: I think we are making slightly heavy weather of this. In an ideal world, the whole world would be ratifying this convention at the same time and we would be seeing an end to cluster munitions. There is a difficulty for us, however, because some countries are not. So, for instance, a national of a country that is not ratifying who uses cluster munitions in another part of the world-not in the UK-and who has no involvement in the UK, could, when travelling through the UK, be arrested for something that is perfectly legal in their own country and in the country where they operated. That is the difficulty that would come about were we to get rid of subsection (3). For instance, because the United States has not ratified, and-unfortunately-has no intention at the moment of doing so, American military personnel engaged in the use of cluster munitions in another part of the world could be arrested immediately when passing through the UK. I do not think that is what people really want to countenance. That is why I disagree with the amendment and urge Members to vote against it, I am afraid.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Bryant: I have finished.

Alan Haselhurst: Order. An hon. Member may speak more than once, as indeed can the Minister.

William Cash: I would like to take up the Minister's last point, in the context of a provision to which we have not referred, namely clause 4(4). The terms of that subsection are apparently in contradiction to the provisions in clause 4(3), because under subsection (4) clause 2(2) is said to apply
	"whether or not the conduct assisted, encouraged or induced takes place, or (if it takes place) will take place, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere."
	However, in subsection (3), which we have just been discussing-and on which I have not received a satisfactory answer from the Minister regarding the European dimension-there is a clear contradiction because subsection (4) could, in certain circumstances, displace or run parallel to subsection (3). This is a very strange piece of drafting.
	The Minister is just asserting that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and I are wrong, rather than giving us a considered assessment of the situation. I understand that he is not a lawyer, and that lawyers are not always right, but there is an inconsistency here. I suspect that the draftsman has gone back to the landmines legislation of 1998 and simply adopted it without having regard to the advances and changes in the law that have taken place since. It is possible that nothing will come of this, because of the probing nature of my hon. Friend's amendment, but I believe that there is a difficulty involved, and the Minister does not take us any further merely by asserting that we are wrong. We have very little opportunity to get this right, and there could be a problem with this provision in a year or so- [ Interruption. ] The Minister shakes his head, but he cannot see into a crystal ball any more than I can.

Edward Davey: I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has convinced me by the force of his argument that there could be a problem here. I am not suggesting that we should stand in the way of the Bill making proper progress, which is why we should, unlike the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), approach this as a probing amendment; there is cross-party support for the Bill.
	However, right hon. and hon. Members will know that there are many non-British nationals living permanently in their constituencies. I have such people coming from many countries around the world, including parts of the European Union. They have come to this country and want to make it their permanent home, but they want to keep their original nationality. My understanding of the law is that they often have to get special papers to allow them that extra status. The Minister, in trying to undermine the arguments from Conservative Members, gave the example of an American transiting the UK being subject to arrest if the hon. Member for Aylesbury had his way. I do not think that that argument holds, however. We are not talking about visitors to this country or about people who are transiting it. We are talking about people who have special status and who have become permanent residents.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, but that is completely and utterly untrue. There would be no distinction. Any foreigner from anywhere in the world-who would be subject to the British courts only if they were physically in the United Kingdom-would be caught by this. There would be no distinction between foreign nationals who were permanently resident or domiciled here and those who were merely transiting the UK.

Edward Davey: The Minister argues that point with great conviction, and he might be right, but I would seriously urge him and his officials to check with the Home Office officials who have to work through the byzantine labyrinth of Home Office legislation on nationality and residence these days. The law has changed many times, and I do not know whether parliamentary draftsmen from the Home Office were involved in the drafting of this Bill, but I would urge him to take advice on this point.

William Cash: I am beginning to sense that the hon. Gentleman is taking a pragmatic and sensible view of this matter. We are faced with a problem, in that the Bill is supposed to go through the Committee like a dose of salts this afternoon, but the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and I are making is about nationality and residence, about whether certain people have signed the convention, and about the interaction between the European Union and the criminal justice system that is being set up under those arrangements. There is an important point involved here, and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is latching on to it.

Edward Davey: Perhaps we are in agreement, which might be a first, but I am not convinced that the issues regarding the European Union are so relevant to this matter, although they are part of the wider picture. I am not going to try the Committee's patience too much, as I have made my point. I hope that the Minister will go away and take further advice. I do not think that the issue should stand in the way of this legislation, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury for raising this important point.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and others, having listened to the Minister's response. There is a way for the Committee to distinguish between the visiting American who is changing planes in Heathrow, and the foreign resident who is paying utility bills and has an address in the United Kingdom.
	Clause 4 makes it clear that the Bill is designed to regulate and control the conduct of people in foreign countries as well as at home. On this occasion, it makes a lot of sense to assert that extraterritorial jurisdiction. Most hon. Members, the Minister and I wish to see an end to this type of munition and we wish to use any reasonable legal power we can take to pursue that aim. I think it makes sense, as the Minister recommends, to assert that we need to control conduct abroad as well as at home. That confronts us, however, with the real dilemma that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury raised-that it would be grossly unfair if two people resident in the UK went off and committed a crime under this legislation in a foreign country, yet only one of them could be prosecuted because only one met the rather tight definitions for prosecution in the Bill while the other one, as the neighbour, got off scot-free. That person, as the neighbour, is clearly in a different category from the American in transit, whom the Minister-I think understandably-wishes to exempt from the extraterritorial jurisdiction. I hope that the Minister will think again.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggests striking out the provision in subsection (3). We need something in there to make it clear who is being governed by the legislation, but it should be broader than under subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c) in order to capture the hard cases that the Minister has not dealt with.

Chris Bryant: In response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), of course we have consulted the Home Office, which was intimately involved in the whole process. We and the Home Office are perfectly confident that this is the right way to deal with the situation. Unfortunately for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the only proposal on the table for us now is to delete subsection (3). No other amendment was tabled in a different direction, so my argument is simply that deleting the subsection would lead to greater hazards and would be injudicious because it would capture every foreign national operating outside the UK whenever they chose to come to the UK.

William Cash: rose-

Chris Bryant: I am not giving way again.  [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am not going to give way.

William Cash: The Minister is not answering the question.

Chris Bryant: I am at liberty not to give way again, I'm afraid. But the hon. Gentleman has now made me lose my direction of travel, so I had better give way to him.

William Cash: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. While he finds his lodestar, let me come back to a simple point. He has defined the problem extremely well and has also indicated that if there were some way of dealing with the problem, he would try to do so. Does the Minister really believe that there is no problem in respect of foreign nationals who come from the European Union, because the arrest warrant and all that goes with it does apply in these circumstances and could raise quite difficult problems in the future?

Chris Bryant: I do not accept that, because the European arrest warrant works in a very different way and is not at all relevant to this discussion. In fact, the vast majority of European countries-I hope all European countries-will sign up to the convention and will ratify it in fairly short order. France and Germany already have. The nationals of those countries will already be caught by the legislation in those countries, so there is no need for us to legislate to make provision for the French, German or Italian person who is going abroad. That is why I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and why it would be inappropriate to accept it.

David Lidington: This has been an interesting short debate, not least because of the historic concordat between Kingston and Surbiton and Stone. That is unprecedented in the annals of the House. I accept the point that the Minister put to the House: the purpose of the Government's drafting had been to protect citizens of countries that have not subscribed to the convention. He referred to visiting American citizens who might even have been acting under orders in handling cluster munitions, which would be lawful in the United States but would not be lawful here, if the Bill becomes law.
	However, that leaves us with the difficulty that I sought to identify in my amendment and that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) have both probed in greater detail: people who have permanent rights of residence in the United Kingdom but who would be exempt from certain categories of offence under the Bill, whereas British citizens would be covered. With all respect to the Minister, it is not correct that every member state of the European Union has signed up to the convention. In particular, Poland-the United Kingdom has a significant Polish community-has declared that it has no intention of signing or ratifying the convention on cluster munitions. Although the Minister said that corresponding legislation in other European countries would close the loophole that I and others have identified, his case is not as watertight as he made out.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend confirm from the Front Bench that were the Minister to come up with a way of dealing with the problem, the Conservative party would give it fair and easy passage if it appeared on a future Order Paper before the House breaks?

David Lidington: I am happy to give the assurance that my right hon. Friend seeks. Subject to your discretion, Sir Alan, it is even possible for that to happen later today, as my understanding would be that if an amendment were passed in Committee, including the Government amendment, we would proceed to Report, when it would be open to the Chair to accept manuscript amendments from the Minister or any other Member. That might provide us with a route to solve the problem identified by Opposition Members, to which the Government have not yet provided a wholly persuasive answer.

William Cash: In referring to Opposition Members, not necessarily of the same party, I think my hon. Friend was fairly careful not to include me. I hope that was not because he was embarrassed to have to agree with me on a matter relating to the European Union, and in this case the European arrest warrant, but he should not be so cautious. Does he not agree that clarification is required, and that the mismatch between the convention and the European Union is a problem? We are within the framework of European law, so the matter requires amendment. Adding the words, "notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972" might be a convenient amendment to table on Report.

David Lidington: I will not commit myself to putting my name to such an amendment at this stage, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the questions he posed have not been answered in full. As he suggested earlier, the number of years that have elapsed since the House voted to implement the landmines convention gives us cause to pause and reflect on whether the design of the legislation needs to be updated.

Chris Bryant: I want to be as helpful as I can, and I should like to be able to consider the idea of a manuscript amendment that would help us along. If, however, we were to include a fourth category of UK residents, we would immediately be in conflict with international legislation on jurisdiction. That is why, in my view, it is legally impossible to separate the two categories that the hon. Gentleman wants-US personnel travelling through the UK who have done something elsewhere but have no residence here, and foreign nationals who happen to live here.

David Lidington: The Committee is in some difficulty, because our time is limited, and this is the only opportunity that we shall have to debate the detail of the Bill. We must therefore take on trust the Minister's assertion that the international legal provisions are as he has described them.

John Redwood: It is difficult for us to accept that, given the number of gradations of status for tax purposes in this country, which are well defined in British law and which have been subject to considerable interest recently.

David Lidington: There are certainly many gradations of tax status. There are also-as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, and I can vouch for it from my own constituency experience-many gradations in the rights of foreign nationals to reside within the United Kingdom, permanently or for particular lengths of time, unconditionally or subject to various conditions imposed by the Government.

William Cash: There is also the question of the defence that might be raised in relation to what the Bill defines as an offence. I see that my hon. Friend is reaching for clause 9, and he is right to do so. Clause 9 provides a defence for a person charged with an offence in certain circumstances when international military operations and activities are taking place. A problem could be posed by a person who came from within the European Union, but fell within the provisions of clause 9. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a serious question mark over this-that is all we are saying at the moment-and that the issue needs to be resolved so that that some people do not get away with it while others are implicated?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend has made a good point, which illustrates the extent to which legislation benefits from detailed scrutiny. It is a pity that we have not been allotted enough time to scrutinise this Bill sufficiently today. The facts that it has cross-party support and that no party wishes to slow its progress to the statute book should not prevent us from trying to examine its detailed implications, particularly as it creates new criminal offences that would bind British citizens.
	Having listened to the debate, I return to the point with which I began in my opening contribution. Amendment 1 is intended to probe. I shall reflect further on what my hon. Friends and other members of the Committee have said about the possibility of a manuscript amendment should we proceed to Report, and I hope that the Government will reflect further on clause 4(3) and the possibility of a redefinition that might fill the gap that we have identified.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill .

Clause 9
	 — 
	International military operations and activities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

John Redwood: It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister gave an explanation of how likely he thinks the defence in the clause would be and how likely it is that it represents some form of block or impediment to the intention of the Bill. The proposal relates to international military operations and to where members of the UK forces may be involved with other states that are not party to the convention. How big a loophole might this be, as against the intention of trying to get rid of the weapons?

William Cash: I would like to take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to which I alluded at Second Reading. It struck me at the time that the proposal was a significant loophole that had been devised for a specific reason: the Government's embarrassment at the fact that some of our allies do not agree with them. Poland has been mentioned and I suspect that other allies are deeply worried about this measure. I invite him to tell us which ones they are so that we can get a better idea where the difference arise.
	In legislation on criminal offences, it is extremely important to have consistency and for the criminal law to apply equally to all those affected by it. This is not just about the merits of the question of cluster munitions; it is about whether the prohibitions, included in brackets in the Bill's title, apply with equal effect under criminal law to all those against whom it is intended to apply.
	It is clear that United Kingdom nationals might fall within the terms of clause 4. Also, the range of people who have the opportunity of defences arising from clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 have half a let-out. Clause 9 must be seen in the context of greater convergence of military matters, some of which I disapprove of because I believe in alliances and not locking in under St. Malo agreements and things of that kind. We must bear in mind the fact that there is talk of a European army; I do not think that the Minister will disagree with that. Joint operations that apply can be in conflict with matters arising from activities in the Balkans and other parts of the world where cluster munitions are already a recognised problem, which is why the Bill is being introduced in the first place. The object of the Bill is significantly undermined by the degree of exemptions, qualifications and offences and by the European dimension. I know that the Minister does not like to hear these truths, or this realistic analysis.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend has made a better study of this than me and is a trained lawyer. Does he agree that members of the United kingdom armed forces could handle and be involved with cluster munitions if they were in joint operations with a state that was not party to the treaty?

William Cash: Absolutely. Some people are not familiar with and simply do not know about the St. Malo agreement and the structure of the extremely detailed operational framework that has been created-I invite them to examine it when this debate is over-whereby commanders come from different countries and orders are given by people to others of different nationalities. We must also consider the south Mediterranean military framework. The bottom line here is that on a raft of matters serious interaction takes place between different nationalities, in terms not merely of alliances with separate lines of command, but of the interaction and integration of operational activities involving the line of command of a military operation. As clause 9 states,
	"'military operation' includes any naval or air force operation."
	Thus, we are dealing with all the services, with all the different nationalities and with different criminal criteria, which apply in different countries under the convention, yet the convention itself is interactive with the European Union.
	I have mentioned the European arrest warrant as but one relevant example, and I simply make the point that it is extremely important to bear certain things in mind. The Minister does not listen to the arguments because he has made up his mind that this is going to go through anyway-that is his problem. Although he happens to be rather a nice Minister, he is very assertive about the things in which he believes passionately. The very mention of the word "Europe", or any slight indication that there might be something awry in the drafting of a Bill for which he is responsible and that suggests that there might be something amiss with the European dimension of it, is enough to send him into a spasm.
	There are problems on this issue. I have made my point. I simply repeat that this stand part debate has raised important questions and these things will come home to roost. I do not think that we have yet been given an answer-

Chris Bryant: I have not spoken about this yet.

William Cash: Indeed the Minister has not spoken about this yet, but I can almost predict that he will take exactly the same line as he has previously, and he will do so in the knowledge that barring the tabling of a manuscript amendment, we will have almost no time or opportunity to do anything about it. That is not good law-making.

The Chairman: Order. I have heard of predictive text, but not of predictive speeches. I call Mr. Lidington.

David Lidington: My question to the Minister is rather narrower than the important issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). My understanding is that clause 9 intends to make it possible for British armed forces to continue to take part in joint operations with allied powers-the United States and others-which have not ratified the convention on cluster munitions and which still have such munitions in their arsenals. Active military operations these days involve not only members of the armed services, but often civilian staff, and perhaps contractors' staff, who are working under military discipline while providing support and ancillary services to Her Majesty's armed forces. Are civilians working with the armed forces on those operations every bit as covered by the protection given by clause 9 as soldiers, sailors and airmen themselves?

Chris Bryant: You referred to predictive texting and predictive speeches, Sir Alan. Earlier today, I tried to send a text to somebody to ask them whether they would like a meal tonight. Unfortunately, predictive texting can change that to, "Would you like a neck this evening?" That came as a bit of a surprise.
	The direct answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is that he is absolutely right: this provision does apply to civilians too. I am sure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) knows that the clause mirrors very precisely the provisions under article 21.3 of the convention. As he rightly says, so many military operations around the world now are joint operations between many different countries, some of which will be state parties that have signed up to the convention and some of which will not. Thus, the whole aim of the clause is to ensure that there is no legal peril for those states' members-military personnel-who are engaged in those alliances. Otherwise, that would simply dismantle military alliances-

William Cash: rose-

Chris Bryant: I will give way, if the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little further progress with my argument.
	That is why we have made this provision. Otherwise, the danger would be that British personnel would be constantly at legal peril in relation to their work not only with the United States of America but with Poland and a series of other countries that retain the use of cluster munitions.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Minister. In fact, the EU dimension that I have mentioned, which causes some hilarity with him, is a serious one. He knows that. A priority for EU member states that have signed or ratified the convention will be to persuade other EU members to sign it -he has indicated as much himself, and he said that he thinks that they will do so. Finland, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Greece are yet to sign. Some of them might have signed since the information that I have in front of me was produced-I do not know, but perhaps the Minister could elucidate. Poland, as he rightly says, has explicitly indicated that it does not intend to sign, but Finland, Estonia and Slovakia were among the countries that adopted the convention in May 2008. There are some hopes that they will sign-I do not need to go into the distinction between signing and ratification with the Minister, but he knows that it can be a serious obstacle.

Chris Bryant: Absolutely. We hope that all countries will sign and ratify the convention and that they will take their obligations seriously. We certainly take seriously our obligations to try to persuade all other countries to move towards ratification. Key among those countries are those with which we work most closely in military operations-not least the United States of America, but also European Union countries such as Poland. I would refer to two other countries as key: Turkey and Brazil.

William Cash: What about Georgia?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman mentions Georgia and it-and Russia, for that matter-is likewise key.
	The reason for having this clause is that we would imperil our British armed forces in most of the operations in which they engage if it was not included in the Bill.

John Redwood: I am very keen that we do not imperil and put at legal risk our forces when they are doing their duty. I favour the purpose, but I think that we need to know a little more about the extent to which the protection of armed service personnel will get in the way of the noble intention, which is to get rid of this type of munition in our activities. Under this law, does the Minister envisage that British forces will be instructed not to handle these munitions in any combined operation and to leave it to their allies if they are going to use them, or will they be allowed under our instructions to handle these munitions when one of our allies has decided to use them?

Chris Bryant: That is a fair point, but the word "handle" could stretch its meaning in many different ways. That is why we want to ensure that there is legal certainty for our armed forces. The convention and the Bill would not allow British armed forces to use cluster munitions, despite the fact that they were in a coalition. They would not be allowed to request the use of munitions where the choice of munitions was within their exclusive control.
	We do not expect that the British armed forces would suddenly say, "I'm sorry, we are not going to allow that aeroplane to land on this airstrip because we know that it is an American aeroplane that has used or might be going to use cluster munitions or that has them on it." The point is about where we have exclusive control, and that is key, but, in addition, the very fact that we have said that we will ratify the convention and the fact that the United States of America has decided to review its cluster munitions means that there will be no American cluster munitions in the UK.

William Cash: Is the Minister aware of any of the problems relating to cluster munitions arising in a far more imminent field of operations that we are continually concerned about-in Afghanistan? Much of what goes on there is affected by what happened when the Russians were there. Will the Bill apply in relation to the safety of our forces, the line of command and our relationships with other nations within NATO as well as with the United States?

Chris Bryant: It will indeed. That is a further reason why we think it important to provide the legal certainty that is enshrined in this clause. For that reason, I strongly hope that the House will support the retention of this clause in the Bill.

John Redwood: We have not had a very full explanation from the Minister. Of course my colleagues and I share his wish that our forces should not be placed in impossible positions in combined operations and that they should have the legal protection they deserve. They are fighting soldiers in those situations and are not expected to be lawyers, so we need to ensure that they are legally protected.
	The Committee is also owed a fuller explanation of how much of a limitation there will be, because we are doing this with some allies but not with others. Anyone studying this area will come to the conclusion that the prohibition on these nasty munitions will work only if all the main countries of the world do the same; it cannot work if a limited number do not play along.

William Cash: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has noticed this, but clause 34(1) states:
	"This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
	For practical purposes, from the moment the Bill goes through, which will presumably be today, our forces in Afghanistan will be affected by its implications, let alone by any other considerations that we have already discussed, looking more to the future.

John Redwood: Indeed. I hope there will be proper guidance and briefings for all our military personnel who might become involved in combined operations with allies. This area will clearly be complex. As the Minister has begun to hint to us, there is a whole gradation of things that could happen. I am glad he says that we will not say to our allies, "You've got cluster munitions, and we think we should use them in this particular circumstance," as it would clearly be against the spirit and intention of the legislation for our armed forces to do that. However, there is a whole series of other situations in which our armed forces could act against the spirit of the legislation because of combined operation. Those in junior command positions could be instructed by senior commanders from allied forces that they need to operate those types of munition. As the Minister has said, our forces could have to facilitate the transport of offensive weaponry, which could include a cluster munition package, or they could be on a battlefield on which our allies are using those weapons but our section is not.
	Of course, I am very much in favour of the intent of the legislation, but we have to be realistic. We must understand that if we are doing this in a set of complex alliances in which not everyone is agreement, we owe it to our forces not only to give them legal protection-I hope that the measure gives watertight and good protection-but to set out how they should operate day by day where we do not have complete agreement with our allies about getting rid of those weapons.

Edward Davey: The points that the right hon. Gentleman has made are right. We need to ensure that our forces have clear guidance and are protected in case allies on the same operations use such weapons. There is no way that we should have any situation in which our armed forces could be prosecuted because allied commanders have decided to use those weapons. However, another way of looking at this is that, as Britain is signing up to the convention and because we work with so many allies, we might be able to spread good practice and persuade others to come into line with us and eventually sign the convention. One of the many advantages of working with NATO and our European partners is that we can try to encourage them. My understanding of the convention that lies behind the Bill, and which we have signed, is that we now have a duty as a country to promote the convention and encourage others-states and non-states-to sign it. Although the interoperability point raises concerns for our servicemen and women, it is also an opportunity to try to get the convention taken up more widely.

Chris Bryant: The truth is that we would not have the convention if it had not included the interoperability provision. It was a key part of the brokerage that the Prime Minister advanced in Dublin. All the voluntary organisations calling for a cluster munitions convention were delighted that we managed to achieve it, and have, therefore, been supportive of the interoperability clause. As article 21(2) states:
	"Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention...and shall promote the norms it establishes."
	In other words, states parties have to make sure that any other states with which they are working understand the basis on which their personnel will be engaged. Yes, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is completely right to say that we have to make sure there is clear guidance for personnel, so they know exactly what they can and cannot do. That is already in hand. Consequently, Sir Alan, I very much hope that the clause will stand part.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 10 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16
	 — 
	Power to enter premises and destroy immobilised prohibited munitions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Redwood: We are rushing through these clauses, so it would be helpful if the Minister explained why so many of them relate to premises in the United Kingdom and what the position would be if the weapons were overseas. We have already discussed-briefly-the fact that many of the cases that might arise under the legislation could do so as a result of events that take place outside our country, but relate to British nationals. What powers, if any, are there to establish the nature of the crime if it takes place outside the UK?

Chris Bryant: We do not seek to introduce new powers in British legislation for us to have access to buildings and properties in other parts of the world. Other countries would probably declare our power to do so rather ultra vires.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 17 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Power to search and obtain evidence: issue of warrant

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Redwood: I come back to the point that we have just briefly debated, because it is also relevant to this clause. The Minister said, understandably, that he cannot assert jurisdiction abroad, but could he tell us what arrangements he intends to put in place, should the legislation pass, for collaboration with overseas jurisdictions? It is much more likely that an offence under the Bill will take place outside the United Kingdom than inside. How would the evidence be garnered and the case presented, given, understandably, that none of the powers relating to the UK can relate to a possible offence in an overseas jurisdiction?

William Cash: The issues that we have already discussed have been covered as adequately as we can, given the constraints of time and opportunity. We put the arguments on the record. It is the Minister's responsibility to make sure that there is no uncertainty and that we have answers to the questions that we pose.

Chris Bryant: I am not sure what charge, allegation or accusation was implicit in the comments of the extremely charming, assertive, aggressive, but usually wrong hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is right to say that we need to make sure that it is possible to investigate. Of necessity, in other jurisdictions in times of war, that will be a complicated process because there will be many different actors involved-that is to say, many different countries will potentially be involved, some of which will be states parties and some of which will not. That is why, when the convention was being drawn up, we were keen to make sure that the requirement was included-that it was not just a matter of an individual country signing up, but that it had to commit itself to trying to make sure that the rest of the world abandoned cluster munitions as well.
	It is obviously difficult for us to advance that argument in jurisdictions which have not ratified the treaty, have no intention of doing so and are determined to use cluster munitions indefinitely. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the situation overseas. We have jurisdiction over some overseas territories, which we may debate later. There we are keen to advance, in the same way as in the United Kingdom, but subject to the constitutional arrangement that we have with each of the overseas territories.
	In this context, I do not think there is a genuine peril. It is difficult for us to announce legislation that has effect in Afghanistan, except in so far as it affects British nationals.

John Redwood: Let us consider a country such as Afghanistan. Let us suppose that British troops broke our law and initiated the use of these weapons contrary to what the Minister, the law and their commanding officer said. Would that be a matter for military discipline or would those troops face a civilian trial at home? Who would collect the evidence? The most natural people to do it would be their commanding officers.

Chris Bryant: Those troops would have committed a criminal offence, subject to up to 14 years' imprisonment and/or a fine, as was mentioned earlier. It would be the police who investigated, and the usual HMRC procedures would be used to bring a prosecution, if that were possible.

William Cash: When we are dealing with questions of evidence, we have to admit that there is not only the question of the arrest warrant, which I have already mentioned, but the evidence warrant directive. That has raised many problems. I have served on the European Scrutiny Committee now for 26 years. Over that time I have seen many problems which, when they were first identified, were considered fantasy for the future, but which have come true. Does the Minister accept that there are serious problems with the clause? The question of evidence and the power to search in relation to these matters, with the legal uncertainty that we have established in Committee, are aspects that he will have to examine carefully.

Chris Bryant: Twenty-six years is considerably longer than the hon. Gentleman would get for using cluster munitions. He should feel that at some point he might be released by the Whips from his obligations on the European Scrutiny Committee, but I have a sneaking fear that he likes serving on the Committee.
	As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Wokingham, it is difficult for us to legislate for the British police to have specific powers in specific countries around the world. However, when a country is also a signatory, co-operation will obviously be more straightforward and simple.

David Drew: On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant: Of course. Another cellmate.

David Drew: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and I make interesting cellmates.
	I understand what the Minister is saying on that issue, but what happens when British forces are involved in action with a non-signatory country that decides to use cluster munitions? That situation is not impossible to envisage, and if it is likely to happen what protection will British forces have?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is a splendid chap, but I think he missed the debate on clause 9, which we have already decided will stand part of the Bill, and which lays all that out pretty clearly. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue, but I am afraid that he has missed that particular part of this boat.
	Without further ado, I hope that clause 21 will stand part of the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23
	 — 
	Disclosure of information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

William Cash: Just by looking at the clause, I note that its origins and inherent problems clearly involve questions of terrorism, because it deals with section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which applies to matters that are dealt with under the Bill. Subsection (2) also deals with section 17 of the 2001 Act, and there are very big problems. The Minister will understand what I am saying, because many issues that arise in relation to cluster munitions in Afghanistan, for example, are affected by activities on the boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Furthermore, it so happens that there are Afghanistan matters relating to fundamentalists, who also have operations that could and, as far as the intelligence services are concerned, certainly will have implications for the United Kingdom.
	There is a question that we need to bear in mind, therefore, but I shall not go any further than this at the moment. The clause states:
	"(1) This section applies to information if-
	(a) it was obtained under, or in connection with anything done under, this Act or the Convention, and
	(b) it relates to a particular business or other activity carried on by any person."
	There are qualifications about disclosure and the exceptions to that disclosure; again, there is an issue about the seriousness of the offence in question; and there is also the context of the uncertainty that, I believe, the Bill itself creates.
	I understand the objectives and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I happen to support the Bill. It has good intentions, but the Minister is making a discovery or, at any rate, will do so, because he has been rather impervious to the arguments this afternoon. I understand why: he has nowhere to go and is in a cul-de-sac. I simply make the point that although he puts forward a series of assertions that, "The Opposition are wrong and, in particular, the hon. Member for Stone is wrong," it does not alter the fact that he cannot answer the questions and there is no time in which to do so. I understand the dilemma and the problem, but we will simply watch the clock tick and see whether in due course some of those issues arise.
	The Minister has had to make an acknowledgement in the course of these proceedings. He started out by suggesting that any opposition was all nonsense and nothing that anyone would say would make any substantial difference, but the Liberal Democrats, my Front Benchers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and I have all been raising issues, not just to be difficult, but because there is uncertainty.
	The uncertainty is inherent in the mismatch between the convention; the European Union; British domestic law; the whole question of the interaction of criminal activities, international operations, alliances, and command and control; and the fact that the people who will get caught up in this are those whom we least want to get caught up-in particular, soldiers on the ground. This is not just about some kind of theoretical exercise, and it is not even about land mines: it is about cluster munitions, which are part and parcel of tactical weaponry that has been used and that some countries intend to continue using. When British soldiers, who should be our main concern, are given orders, or when such information is made available, they will get caught up in this complex web of legal conduct.
	Is the Minister able to tell us that very clear guidance will be given, in a manual, for the services-not only the Army but the Navy and the Air Force? However persistent and tenacious I may be on this subject, my prime concern is to protect the British soldier, and the Minister has an obligation to tell us that there will be a manual that accurately describes the relative responsibilities and duties in the very complex web of military operations that will arise from this legislation.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman must have slipped out of the Chamber when I answered a similar question from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about what guidance will be provided for our personnel. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is imperative that we produce unambiguous, clear, straightforward guidance for our personnel so that they know how to avoid moral and legal peril. That is also why we have tried to construct the legislation in a way that ensures that our British personnel, although they may frequently be operating alongside personnel from countries that still retain cluster munitions, are not imperilled. He said that I was in a cul-de-sac, but I am afraid that in relation to clause 23, on the disclosure of information, he is in a cul-de-sac. He has not tabled any amendment, so I am not sure why-or whether, for that matter-he disagrees with the clause standing part of the Bill.

William Cash: We are debating clause stand part. It was my intention, in line with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), to conduct these Committee proceedings, and indeed the Report stage to come, on the basis that we have supported the Bill and that we want it to work, but we expect the Minister to answer our questions, which is his responsibility in an accountable Parliament. We are not just probing; we are challenging, but it is not necessary to table an amendment to achieve that objective. The Minister may be slightly out of order in suggesting that I should have tabled an amendment on clause stand part.

Chris Bryant: I would not dare suggest that the hon. Gentleman table an amendment, or do anything in particular. My point was that I find it difficult to know precisely the nature of his question about disclosure of information. We believe that it is important, in line with the provisions of the convention, to protect information that may be gathered in the process of implementing the Bill and the convention, and that is why the clause is in the Bill. I did not understand from his remarks that he was opposed to that provision, which we believe to be important.

David Drew: I shall try to be helpful so that I am not chided for missing something. If I understood correctly what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, I certainly concur with it. He was saying that British forces must have very clear rules of engagement, which must be understood by any allied force with which we are involved. They must preclude the use of cluster munitions, even if that other allied force is willing to use them. Otherwise, British service people could be subject to the will of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: I am afraid that that has nothing to do with clause 23, which is about the disclosure of information. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say-I have tried to make this point a couple of times now, and I will take a third stab at it-that there have to be clear and unambiguous guidelines for British personnel. Those guidelines have to be available not only to our personnel, so that they fully understand the position that they are in and what they can and cannot do, but to forces of other nationalities with whom we are operating.
	As I said earlier-I think my hon. Friend missed it-it is right that we should ensure that where British personnel have exclusive control over what munitions are used, they do not seek the use of cluster munitions. However, it would not be right for British troops to refuse to use an American aeroplane in Afghanistan, for instance, because they knew that it had been or might be used for cluster munitions at some point. That is a clear distinction that is laid down in the convention and the Bill, although not in clause 23, which I hope will stand part of the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24
	 — 
	Consent to prosecution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

William Cash: This is a very important clause, because when we bring all the arguments that we have addressed so far down to the crunch, the question is whether a prosecution would ever actually be pursued. Consent for any prosecution would have to be given by the Attorney-General in England and Wales or the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, but I believe that only yesterday, there may have been a change to the latter post. There is apparently a new provision for an Advocate-General in Northern Ireland in relation to justice and policing. I may be wrong, but I took part in the debate yesterday and I believe that there is to be a change in the nomenclature for a person who carries out the functions specified in the clause. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who knows far more about the Northern Ireland provisions than I do, might want to intervene and help me out.

Mark Durkan: It is not often that I am called in aid by the hon. Gentleman, so there is a blue moon this evening. Under devolution, there will be a devolved Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, but the Attorney-General in London will for certain purposes serve in the role of Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. The Advocate-General for Northern Ireland will be the Attorney-General here in London and will deal with such matters as national security. The Attorney-General for Northern Ireland will deal in the main with matters under devolved law.

William Cash: I am extremely glad that the hon. Gentleman is here, by an accident of fate, because that has helped me, and I believe the Committee, to understand the matter. I suspect that we may still require an amendment. I am not sure about that, but no doubt the Minister will look to those advising him to decide whether that is the case. I see a lot of shaking of heads, and I will be delighted if this minor matter of nomenclature alone does not lead to the Bill's being held up unnecessarily.
	That is not to say that the question of consent is not important. I would be interested to know what discussions the Minister has had with the Attorney-General, because this provision is not a cul-de-sac but a longstop. Given what we regard as the uncertainties in the law that we have discussed this afternoon, he must have discussed with the Attorney-General in what circumstances the latter's consent would be required, so as to ensure that proceedings on an offence could be halted where necessary.
	What are those circumstances? Do they relate to the complications that we discussed in the debate on clause 9 and the intricate web of conventions, EU law, English domestic law, the role of the Attorney-General, and the changes to that role made by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords? Those issues are extremely important to the soldiers on the ground and their commanders. Indeed, they are important for the rules, guidance and manuals that the Minister kindly told us he has addressed. Those matters are important, but right at the heart of them is this question: what indications has the Minister had from the Attorney-General as to when she will or will not give consent?

Chris Bryant: We could have left out clause 24, which would have meant that the Attorney-General had no role to play. However, there are several reasons why we decided that it was important to include such a measure, the first and foremost of which is the severity of the penalty, which, as has been cited, is up to 14 years' imprisonment. Secondly, there is an extra-territorial element to the Bill, which means that a much more complicated set of decisions must be made before a prosecution can go ahead. Thirdly, in legislation such as the Landmines Act 1998, we have included a similar provision to require the Attorney-General's consent.
	I am not particularly troubled about the Northern Ireland-UK dimension, because the prosecution of someone in Northern Ireland could in any case be started in England and Wales. I therefore do not think that any further amendments are necessary.

William Cash: I am very glad in one sense to hear what the Minister has just said. On whether consent for prosecution would be given, he has admitted that there are serious questions in the context of the complexity of the Bill-he earlier implied that I was making too much of a meal of that. The consent of the Attorney-General would be required in the circumstances that I described and, as the Minister said, the offence is very serious, with 14 years on the line, so who is and is not guilty and the question of their intent-mens rea-must be defined.
	There are other very important questions, including whether there are accessories, aiders and abetters, and whether a particular commander, foot soldier or other was involved. The severity of the criminal offences might in almost every case be aimed at members of our service personnel, so those questions are important.
	I would assert that our job in this Committee is to try to protect those who might otherwise be unfairly or unreasonably caught by the provisions because of what the Attorney-General decides.

Mark Durkan: rose-

William Cash: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: I thought that it was still my speech and that the hon. Gentleman was intervening; I gave way to him, so he cannot give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).

William Cash: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I apologise to the Minister, because I thought that he had finished his speech. The Annunciator might not say that he has done so, but that does not mean that that is right.

Sylvia Heal: Order. I thought that the Minister was intervening on the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Chris Bryant: I hope that you meant that the other way round, Mrs. Heal, but anyway, now that we have cleared that up, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is absolutely right to say that the issues are complex. I have never wanted to question the fact that the application of the measures and their inter-operability is complex, which is why I have had discussions with the Attorney-General. We would want to prosecute wherever we can.
	I should just say that the hon. Member for Stone made one inadvertent mistake. He said that using a cluster munition and aiding and abetting are two different offences, but they are actually the same under clause 2.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way; he is very generous-and creative.
	Other hon. Members have referred to the possible impact of the measures on members of the armed forces. Of course, businesses and firms that conduct activity that is questionable under both the convention and the Bill will also be affected. The Minister stated that he had discussed that with the Attorney-General and that the Government were determined that prosecutions would take place where possible. Does the issue of public interest arise? Is there a possibility that prosecutions of firms under the Bill will be stayed because the Prime Minister or someone else intervenes owing to so-called public interest considerations, as in the case of the Serious Fraud Office investigation of BAE Systems?

Chris Bryant: The Attorney-General's role is different from that of a politician. A politician might come up with all sorts of arguments for what they want, but the Attorney-General will decide on the basis of law whether she wants to proceed with an individual prosecution. I do not think that my hon. Friend expects me to state on her behalf when she will and will not give her consent.
	As I said, we take our commitments under the convention extremely seriously, and we want to ensure that cluster munitions become a thing of the past. That means that investigations into companies that are thought to be flouting the law could begin-if so, we would expect full compliance as quickly as possible. I very much hope that clause 24 will stand part of the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 25 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29
	 — 
	Power to modify Act

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Lidington: I want to ask the Minister why he believes that the pretty draconian enabling powers in the clause are necessary. The clause gives the Secretary of State power, by means of a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, to amend not just the Bill, once it becomes an Act, but any other enactment, past or future, and any Act of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly, if he considers it necessary or desirable to do so because of amendments to the convention on cluster munitions.
	The kernel of my challenge to the Minister is this: why does he need the powers, given that the Bill is proceeding with cross-party support? One assumes that any later amendment to the cluster munitions convention would also have pretty broad-based support, both in the House and internationally. In those circumstances, why can we not simply rely on full parliamentary procedures? That would allow proper time for scrutiny, for detailed inspection of the Government's legislation, and for the meaning of the proposed change to be elucidated in full.
	The Minister and I both know that often, statutory instruments are passed with no debate at all. In the House of Commons, at best we are talking about a 90-minute debate upstairs in a Committee Room, with a select group of Members of Parliament, as opposed to the whole House being given the opportunity to comment on new legislation proposed by the Government. Why is there need for such an enabling power? Surely primary legislation is a perfectly adequate vehicle.

William Cash: Obviously, I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but I would simply add a point. He refers to a Committee upstairs, but having sat on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know exactly what happens; it is really a kind of dose of salts. I do not want to be disrespectful to the Committee, but when I was on it, I was concerned at the fact that a lot of statutory instruments went through rather easily. We are talking about a statutory instrument that would involve the modification of the Bill. That statutory instrument would be subject to the affirmative procedure, but that in itself is no safeguard.
	My hon. Friend is right. If the Bill were modified, there would be issues in the light of the complexities that the Minister now accepts are inherent in the Bill, the interaction of alliances, conventions, different jurisdictions, kinds of law and judicial attitudes, and the whole question of responsibility for control and command. There are also questions that go outside the normal courts; for example, we have not mentioned courts martial at all, but that issue could arise in the context of the matters that we are discussing. I wonder whether the Attorney-General might not be in some difficulty in that respect.
	We are talking about serious questions and offences with substantial penalties. Subsection (1) says:
	"The Secretary of State may by order...make such modifications"-
	this is the crucial set of words-
	"as the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable to give effect to any amendment of the Convention made in pursuance of the...Convention."
	As for the words "considers necessary or desirable", we have been through that issue before. Anyone who has had experience of this House over a period of time, and any lawyer, knows that the phrase is extremely wide and virtually unchallengeable. The phrase used to be "in the opinion of"; now, it is "considers necessary or desirable", which is very wide.
	The clause goes on to say:
	"An order under subsection (1) may also make... modifications of any other enactment (whenever passed or made)",
	including retrospectively,
	"as the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable"-
	there are those words again. That is worse than a Henry VIII provision; it is carte blanche. I would not particularly have wanted such a provision to have applied even in Henry VIII's reign; it might have been applied not merely to his wives, but anyone else in the entourage, because the provision catches everybody. Henry VIII would have had a field day with it.
	Despite the fact that the statutory instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure-here I look to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), with whom I seem to have been having quite a dialogue over the past few days, both in the Chamber and outside it-"enactment" is specifically defined, and not by reference to the interpretation Act. For the purposes of the provision,
	"In this section...'enactment' means...
	(a) an Act of Parliament,
	(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
	(c) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, or
	(d) Northern Ireland legislation".
	In terms of the powers conferred,
	"a 'modification' includes an addition, repeal or revocation."
	I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider that, because as a distinguished member of the Northern Ireland legislature, he will know-as will others who discussed Northern Irish questions relating to justice, criminal law and policing yesterday-that however familiar people have got with totally undesirable legislation that legislates in order to legislate further, and to undo legislation, both retrospectively and in the future, that that is a very bad way to go about handing out sentences, with or without the consent of the Attorney-General, to our soldiers on the ground.
	We are talking about a very severe penalty of 14 years. It would be different if we were talking about a minor piece of legislation. I do not know what went on in other parts of the precincts of Parliament and in the other House, but the consideration that we are giving to the Bill today, at rather short notice and on a fairly tight programme, ought to reflect the seriousness of the offence that is being imposed. As the hon. Member for Foyle rightly indicated, those affected could be bodies corporate, businesses or partnerships. I have insisted on the point about the effect on the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, or on duty in Bosnia, where there are a lot of cluster munitions.
	There are the problems of the exceptions that arise by virtue of the fact that a fairly substantial number of people have not signed up to the convention. We also have difficulties in relation to our allies, some of whom would not even supply us with ammunition during the Iraq war. I do not regard them as being much use. That is a serious matter. In addition, there are a significant number of people who are supposed to be engaged in Afghanistan with us. We have soldiers dying daily in Sangin and Helmand, and other countries are simply not taking an active part; that is a serious problem.
	The cluster munitions provisions affect our operations on the ground in Afghanistan. In all fairness, I know that the Minister recognises that. He also knows that there are serious penalties in the Bill. The powers in the clause to modify the Act in such an extremely wide manner, over a very wide and complicated landscape, are completely unwarranted. I am sure that the Whip on duty will listen to this-oh, there is no Whip here. I am not a Whip, or in the slightest degree interested in being a Whip, but I would have thought that we ought to vote against the provision, because it goes too wide on too serious a matter-a matter that has a serious implication for our armed services.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the clause, and touched on possible implications for devolved interests, and specifically Northern Ireland, which is the area of concern to me.
	I hope that the Minister, when he replies, can offer some assurance on a number of matters. First, I want to stress that those of us who strongly support the Bill want to see within it provision to ensure that, as the convention changes, modifications can be made to the Bill. Clearly, this is a significant convention; it is the most significant disarmament treaty for a decade-hopefully, not the most significant for the decade to come, but it might be. However, if it is changed, and if it grows, obviously we want legislation here to be able to track and reflect that. So providing some instrument for ready and reliable modification is a matter of sensible and good intent on the part of the Government.
	To that extent, and if that is the motivation behind the clause, I am comfortable with it. However, concerns arise about how the clause is then used. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, it is premised on what the Secretary of State "considers necessary or desirable" to give effect to any amendment made to the convention. In the first instance, two questions arise: first, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power so to modify the Bill. We know that there have been changes to various other international conventions that many hon. Members have lobbied to have reflected in law here, only to find that the Government, for whatever reason, have been dilatory in doing so or have decided that they do not think it necessary or desirable to reflect changes to conventions enacted elsewhere in the law here. So, if the Secretary of State chooses not to make such a modification, is it possible in any other way for House to make such modifications?
	Secondly, what happens if the Secretary of State uses a change in the convention not just to introduce a change to the Act that everyone else agrees is necessary and sensible, but to bring forward other changes that many people might not agree are necessary and uses the provision as a cover for various other modifications that would be equivalent to a derogation from the convention?

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, because although subsection (1) is definitely tied to
	"any amendment of the Convention made in pursuance of the...Convention",
	subsection (2) states:
	"as the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable in consequence of the modifications of this Act made by that order."
	So it is in consequence of the modification; it is not so tightly tied to the convention. Does he not also agree that, given the points that he is validly making, and which, I believe, I am validly making, it would not be a bad idea, as a matter of law, to require the Attorney-General to give her advice on whether a modification was necessary, given the complexities?

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that relevant observation, although I am not sure that we can await the consideration of the Attorney-General, given the exigencies of the situation today. However, I would like the Minister to tell us just how wide the interpretative sweep available to the Secretary of State is. What he may consider necessary or desirable might either fall well short of what is actually required to match changes to the convention or exceed them in a number of ways. The Secretary of State may use the contrivance of changes in pursuance of changes to the convention to water down other aspects of the Bill.
	The big problem is that although the House might feel it all very well to give the Secretary of State the power so to change legislation of this House, should he also have the power of fiat to change the legislation of other Assemblies and Parliaments in relation to any enactment? For instance, there is no reference to legislative consent motions or anything else. It might be that future changes to the convention put in place particular obligations and restrictions on what Governments do with, or for, companies that might, or might not, have been involved in contraventions of the ban on cluster munitions.

William Cash: It is slightly extraordinary that the Bill gives rise to so many complications, and, in many ways, I am rather concerned that we are having to spend so much time on it, but these are not trivial matters. For example, in the context of the Scotland Act 1998-effectively, the same is now the case in Northern Ireland, as of last night-the degree of devolution is such that serious questions will arise, in relation to offences, about whether the advice of the Attorney-General, or her equivalent in each country forming part of the United Kingdom, should be taken. In particular, the question arises about whether the clause should be amended so that the advice of whoever is the appropriate person is included in its terms to ensure that the consent of the Attorney-General, or whoever, is mirrored in the Secretary of State's use of those wide powers.

Mark Durkan: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points. All I ask of the Minister-obviously he cannot accede to the advice of the hon. Member for Stone-is that he seek to offer us some assurance that the Government are sensitive to the concerns and considerations being voiced here and to reassure us by indicating that any modifications to devolved legislation would use the facility of a legislative consent motion, to ensure that they are not imposed without consent, particularly on a point of potential controversy. Will he also indicate that there will be clear concordats and protocols in relation to the interests of devolved Assemblies and their relevant Governments and Executives in terms of anything that the Secretary of State would propose to do under the powers given to him in the clause? The clause characterises a wide and sweeping power that has no regard to anyone else's thoughts, interests or prerogatives other than what the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable.

Chris Bryant: I confess that I am not a big fan of the clause. I do not generally like such clauses, and I think that it is better, when one can, to ensure that we proceed with primary legislation. However, in relation to a convention such as the one on cluster munitions, which contains express provisions for amendment, and when such a convention is not yet binding on the whole world and recognises, at its very core, that some countries will be states parties and others will not, it is important that we have some means of amendment.
	It is always better, of course, to make amendments through primary legislation, but my difficulty is that we are taking through this Bill later than I would have liked. It is a shame that, although we were one of the front-runners in moving forward the debate on cluster munitions, we have ended up outside the first 30 countries to ratify the convention. That is because there will always be a pretty hefty parliamentary work load. The legislation has been ready for some time, but it has taken a while to find a slot in the parliamentary programme-and, who knows what will happen to programming after the general election? The difficulty is, I suggest, that if we insisted on primary legislation for any amendment to the convention, there would probably be a delay in getting it on to the statute book.

Mark Durkan: I assure the Minister that I was not looking for an insistence on primary legislation, and I accept the motivation behind the clause-the aim of ensuring that there can be ready and realisable amendment and modification when necessary. Our concern is about the purposes for which the clause might be used, given that it is so wide in its sweep.

Chris Bryant: I understand that, and I was not making such an allegation against my hon. Friend. One of the difficulties is that we cannot be precise about any amendment that might be necessary, as an amendment might not have been sparked by us within the convention. None the less, it might be an amendment that we wished to pursue or that we might be required by the convention to bring into our own legislation.
	That is also why we were keen to ensure that these changes would happen under the affirmative resolution procedure. In that way, the House would be able to take a view on the matter. I subscribe to the view-which is shared by quite a lot of people-that we do not do statutory instruments very well. Many hon. Members are not particularly keen to sit on the Committees, and one sometimes feels as though one is there as just a piece of voting fodder. That is problematic in regard to the way in which we take legislation through, but it is not a matter that I can resolve during the passage of this Bill.

William Cash: But I am sure that the Minister will appreciate my point that a very simple manuscript amendment could be tabled on Report if necessary and desirable-to use the language of the Bill. We in this House have the right to insist on being able to table such amendments at this time. Just as the Secretary of State will be able to decide what is necessary and desirable, so this House can make a decision about tabling amendments on Report using exactly the same criteria.
	It would, however, be open to the Minister to agree-without making concessions or climbing down-that the complexity that has emerged in the course of the debate, and the effect on the individuals who will be subjected to it, could easily be remedied by combining in the clause a further provision. In subsection (1), after the words
	"The Secretary of State may by order",
	we could insert the words "with the advice of the Attorney-General", before the phrase
	"made by statutory instrument".
	In other words, we could include in the process the Attorney-General, whose consent would be required in relation to the provisions of the Bill itself. By including a reference to the Attorney-General in this clause, we would ensure that the complexity of the amendments that the Minister seems to accept will arise would be dealt with, because the Attorney-General would be part and parcel of the Secretary of State's consideration of the amendments and modifications. Does the Minister not agree that that is a reasonable proposition?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to table an amendment orally, but unfortunately it has not been tabled- [ Interruption. ] Now he is asking me to table it, but I do not want the amendment that he has suggested. If he had really wanted us to debate it, he might have tabled it himself. Earlier, he was trying to take the Attorney-General out of the equation; now, he seems to want to put her in, but at a different point- [ Interruption. ] I understand, but I am afraid that I must-assertively and, I hope, charmingly-disagree with him on this point.  [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) has finally woken up-

Tom Harris: No, I have just arrived.

Chris Bryant: He says that he has just arrived, but he has been here for some time. He has clearly given up on texting me, however-and, no, I am not going to karaoke this evening!
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked for some assurances on how we would proceed with this provision. Let me make it clear that, if there were to be substantial changes, I think that there should be primary legislation. If there were to be changes that directly affected any of the devolved Administrations, there should be proper consultation with them and a proper process should be undergone, rather than some kind of fiat coming down from the Secretary of State. With those assurances, I hope that we can agree that clause 29 should stand part of the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32
	 — 
	Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

William Cash: The clause specifically states:
	"This Act binds the Crown."
	It goes on to say:
	"No contravention by the Crown of a provision of this Act makes the Crown criminally liable."
	The various other subsections include the provision:
	"Nothing in this section affects Her Majesty in her private capacity."
	The clause then deals with matters relating to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
	This is rather like having one's cake and eating it, when dealing with cases involving military personnel. We have had a great deal of debate on these matters, and on whether soldiers, commanders or those involved in prosecutions should have certain defences available to them. We have explored the loophole argument, and discussed international operations. Here we are, however, discussing the application of the legislation to the Crown. The clause states, quite rightly, that the Crown is bound by the legislation, and that Her Majesty should not be affected by it in her private capacity, but it also states:
	"No contravention by the Crown of a provision of this Act makes the Crown criminally liable."
	I should like some elucidation from the Minister as to what he has in mind here; I have a suspicion that he does not know the answer.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is very perspicacious. I might have to write to him about this. I do not think that he wants the clause not to stand part of the Bill, however, so I shall not be interfering with the proper scrutiny of the Bill by doing that. I will write to him to provide further elucidation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33
	 — 
	Extent

David Lidington: I beg to move amendment 4, page 21, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "shall".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, page 21, line 29, leave out "any of".

David Lidington: Clause 33 covers the extent of the proposed Act. My amendments seek to strengthen the provisions which, as drafted, will allow the Government to extend by Order in Council the provisions of the legislation to cover the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories.
	Amendment 4 would replace the provision that gives the Government the power to extend the coverage of the Act, should they choose to exercise it, with an insistence that the Secretary of State bring forward such a scheme to cover the British overseas territories, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Amendment 5 would require such an extension to cover all those territories, which would prevent any Government from holding back and choosing not to apply the provisions of the convention to one or two particular territories.
	On Second Reading, the Minister was at pains to assure the House that the Government fully intended to extend the provisions of the legislation to cover the British overseas territories, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. He gave an indication that the Government wished to move forward on that front sooner rather than later, and I hope that he will repeat that assurance now. Given that that is the Government's declared intention, however, I would have thought that they might accept these modest amendments-especially amendment 4-and accept the imposition upon themselves of a duty so to act.
	I would add one further point. Two of the British overseas territories-Ascension island and Diego Garcia-play host to United States military bases. As I understand it, there are different leasing agreements in respect of those two territories. There is quite understandable concern that the British Government intend to extend the provisions of the cluster munitions convention to those territories, along with the others. It would help the Committee if the Minister indicated whether he foresaw any particular obstacles, given the legitimate presence of US forces on those two islands or whether in discussions between the British and the US Government any such problems have been overcome.

Edward Davey: I rise briefly to say that the amendments are good proposals. I see no reason for having "may" and not "shall", so we need clear assurance from the Minister. To be fair to him, when my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) pressed him on this matter on Second Reading, particularly in respect of Diego Garcia, he gave some clear commitments and explained that the stockpiles of cluster munitions there at the moment will be taken away by 2013. That is good. That being the case, however, I cannot see why there is any problem opting for "shall" rather than "may". I hope that the Minister can help us out on that.

William Cash: I participated in a Westminster Hall debate initiated by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) only a few days ago on the issue of the British overseas territories, particularly the two just mentioned. The Chagos island disputes and the whole question of Diego Garcia were considered, as was the extent to which there were continuing problems of displacement and compensation and whether people could return to their properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) alluded to aspects of those problems.
	There is no doubt, on the basis of what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said and other evidence-or, at least, other assertions-that cluster munitions are stockpiled or lying in those territories. The formula adopted in clause 33(3) is not that unusual, but if we leave aside the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which I do think are likely to present problems, we need to look at the acute difficulty arising for the British overseas territories, particularly those mentioned by me, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. It is essential to clarify this matter, because there will otherwise be a serious contradiction.
	Because these are British overseas territories, all the debates we have had about the interaction between ourselves and, say, the United States or other allies, arise in a very practical sense in this provision. This is about cluster munitions, the question of nationality, the question of residence and territorial rights and the question of whether cluster munitions are in a certain place. We should leave aside Afghanistan, where there is an essential, immediate and practical clear and present danger of these provisions impinging on persons within the jurisdiction of the UK. We are looking for a very specific answer from the Minister. I am sure he has got one, but I hope that it is going to be satisfactory.

Chris Bryant: I will do my best. We want to make sure that all the overseas territories are fully compliant with the convention as swiftly as possible. There are two complicating elements in that. First, each of the overseas territories has its own constitution and its own legal set-up. Consequently, when we introduce the convention in each of those countries, we have to take cognisance of that. That is why, although there is very little difference in practice between "shall" and "may", I would prefer to stick with "may" because "shall" implies that the overseas territories themselves will have no say in the way in which implementation is brought forward. That is the only difference between us on that issue.

William Cash: The Minister will understand why I immediately refer him back to clause 29 and the power to modify Acts. One wonders about the extent to which it is within the framework of the UK Parliament to make adjustments to the constitutions of the British overseas territories, and I do not know what the Minister has in mind. The constitutions or the treaties made with other allies might affect the manner in which the residents of the overseas territories could be unreasonably damaged or inhibited in how to deal with cluster munitions, particularly in the specific territories mentioned. Is the Minister prepared to take power, using clause 29, which provides for the power to modify Acts, in order to achieve those objectives, or is he just going to talk to the local legislature and ask if it might be interested or prepared to make the necessary changes? How is he going to go about it?

Chris Bryant: It varies significantly from one overseas territory to another. Obviously, the Falklands is different from Pitcairn, which is very different from the British Indian ocean territory. The term of conviction on indictment in previous legislation that we wanted to introduce across all the overseas territories to match UK legislation had to be replaced by reference instead to convictions by the supreme court of the territory, because the concept of conviction on indictment is unknown in the British Antarctic or the British Indian ocean territory.
	That is why the two amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), with whose direction of travel I entirely sympathise, are inappropriate. They rather conflict with the policy that we tried to adopt with the overseas territories, which is to bring them with us rather than simply impose upon them. There is also the element of wanting to ensure that the precise way in which the individual clauses are applied to each of the overseas territories works within the legal context of the respective territories. As I say, they are very different. Over the last few years, we have dealt with each of the overseas territories, bringing in new constitutions that meet a series of other considerations, such as the European convention on human rights or the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK.
	The absolute assurance I can give is that whether or not we end up with "may" or "shall" in amendment 4 and whether or not we accept amendment 5 will make not a single bit of difference to the process we will engage in or the swiftness with which we expect to be able to engage in it.

Mark Durkan: The Minister has argued that because some of the terms in the Bill are not consistent with the legal frameworks in some of the overseas territories, the amendments would not be appropriate. Surely, however, clause 33(3) states:
	"Her Majesty may"-
	the amendment would say "shall"-
	"by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with modifications (including additions or omissions)".
	If aspects of the Bill do not rhyme with provisions in some of the overseas territories, it can obviously be taken into account in the legislation that would be made.

Chris Bryant: But, if my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, that is to forget amendment 5, which is to remove the word "any". That is precisely the point. If we remove the word "any" and turn "may" into "shall", we would have to introduce everything as it is. There is no difference of view over the end-point that we want to arrive at, which is that there should be no cluster munitions on British overseas territories or anywhere under UK jurisdiction. We will move as quickly as we possibly can and I want to be able to do so with the assistance of the overseas territories.

David Lidington: Does the Minister have it in mind that 2013 will be the date by which the convention and the Bill will take effect in all these territories?

Chris Bryant: Yes, absolutely. In relation to Diego Garcia in particular, as I said last week, the United States has made it clear that it will remove all its stockpile in the UK by the end of the year, and across the whole of the UK's jurisdictions by 2013. With that, I hope that hon. Members will not feel the need to press the amendments.

David Lidington: I listened with interest to the Minister's comments, and I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the matter. The Minister certainly persuaded me with regard to amendment 5-I can see that to delete the words "any of" would introduce an unsuitable element of inflexibility. I am less persuaded, however, by his assurances about whether "shall" or "may" is the more appropriate word to use.
	I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity when he says that the Government's intention is to press forward as soon as possible, and I accept to some extent his point that the Government are anxious not to offend the susceptibilities of the British overseas territories and want to bring them with the Government, so that they feel they have some ownership of the legislation as it extends to their parts of the world. On the other hand, amendment 4 would not insist that legislation is extended to the British overseas territories in a particular form. As the hon. Member for Foyle pointed out, subsection (3) provides for "any of the provisions" to be extended; it does not insist that all are extended at once, or at all, to each of the territories. It makes express provision for modifications, including additions or omissions. The Government have less cause to be concerned about amendment 4 than they do about amendment 5. The amendment offers us a way to improve the Bill in a modest but worthwhile fashion, and I intend to press it to a vote.
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The  Committee  proceeded to a Division.

The First Deputy Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 190, Noes 255.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 34
	 — 
	Commencement and short title

Chris Bryant: I beg to move amendment 6, page 21, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
	This is very straightforward. The necessity for clause 34(3), inserted in the House of Lords, refers to the financial privilege that obtains to the House of Commons pursuant to the resolution of 1671:
	"That in all aids given to the King by the Commons, the Rate or Tax ought not to be altered by the Lords"-
	something to which the Lords have tacitly assented since their 1702 resolution.
	In the Lords, the subsection was inserted to maintain the fiction that a Bill originating in the Lords would not require a money resolution in the Commons. Now that the Bill has already been in the Lords and we have maintained that fiction, we no longer need the subsection. The amendment merely removes that subsection so that we can proceed. It will not mean that the Bill would be subject to ping-pong.

William Cash: I am more interested in facts than fictions. I am concerned about clause 34(1), which says:
	"This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
	There is no need for me to make a speech on the subject because I have made my reasons quite clear in previous speeches on other clauses, but the measure is precipitate, unnecessary and dangerous-

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing amendment 6? Perhaps his remarks could be directed to that.

William Cash: I am glad to have got the point on the record.
	 Amendment agreed to.
	 Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Duty of the Secretary of State in respect of stockpiles

'(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of Royal Assent, lay before both Houses a plan for the destruction of all stockpiles of prohibited munitions held under United Kingdom jurisdiction.
	(2) The Secretary of State's plan shall provide for the destruction of all stocks of prohibited munitions within eight years of Royal Assent.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall present an annual report to Parliament on progress made in destroying stocks of prohibited munitions.'.- (Mr. Lidington.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The convention imposes on all states parties a duty not only to introduce a prohibition against the possession or use of cluster munitions but to destroy existing stockpiles of cluster munitions that fall under the jurisdiction and control of that state party. The new clause would impose on the Secretary of State explicitly a duty to publish a plan for the UK to destroy its existing stockpiles of cluster munitions. It would further require the Government to provide in that plan for all stockpiles to be destroyed within eight years, the time limit set by the convention. It would oblige the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on progress made or not made in adhering to the published plan.
	The thing that has puzzled me about the Bill is that although there is a clear duty laid on states parties by the convention and although there is no doubt about the Government's commitment to seek to deliver on the requirement to destroy stockpiles of cluster munitions, there is no mention of that convention duty and no requirement to be imposed by law on the Secretary of State to ensure that the destruction of stockpiles is carried out. The new clause would make certain that the Government delivered on what they have promised and what, in signing the convention, they have undertaken to do.

Edward Davey: I have great sympathy with the new clause and I hope that the Minister will explain that it is not needed. If it were needed, I would encourage the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to push it to a vote. I suspect that it is not needed because, as I understand it, signing the convention with respect to the commitment to get rid of the stockpiles is legally binding on the Government. However, the rest of the Bill contains those items that the Government must put into domestic law to make it legally binding on others who might commit an offence, so the convention has the force of law on Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I do not think the new clause is needed, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says.

William Cash: I also hope that the provision is not necessary. Without wanting to be too pedantic-or precise, to put it another way-the expression
	"held under United Kingdom jurisdiction"
	in the new clause might be better expressed as "within UK jurisdiction". Munitions are held in the British overseas territories-Diego Garcia being a good example. To say that these are held under United Kingdom jurisdiction is not correct; it is within UK jurisdiction but not held under UK jurisdiction. I do not want to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) but I want to perform my function, which is to try to elucidate. There is a problem but it can be overcome; the Minister can do that with assurances that the intentions behind the measure will be implemented.

Chris Bryant: Would that my assurances always satisfied the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). He apologised earlier for being a lawyer, but in fact he is doing us a service in this regard. I think I am right in saying that when Peter the Great visited this Parliament, he complained to the then monarch that there were far too many lawyers. So far as he knew, there were only two in his country and when he returned, he was going to execute one of them. One lawyer is fine; two is always a problem.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a problem in the new clause in relation to the phrase
	"held under United Kingdom jurisdiction".
	The convention specifically refers to "jurisdiction and control". Not all the cluster munitions that are currently physically within our jurisdiction are under our control. I am afraid that the amendment falls on that count but, more importantly, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, it is unnecessary.
	We are already obliged under article 7 of the convention, which has one of the most rigorous systems of transparency that I have seen in an international convention, to make clear what our programme is for the destruction of our stockpiles-those within our jurisdiction and under our control. I hope that nobody will doubt our intent on this, because before signing the convention a whole type of cluster munition-the HE M483A1-had been destroyed. In the month that the UK signed the convention, all types of 755 sub-munitions had been destroyed. In July last year, following the inclusion of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill in the draft legislative programme, the destruction of all CRV-7 MPSM M73 sub-munitions was completed. In total, more than 14 million sub-munitions have been destroyed so far, which was some 37 per cent. of the UK's entire stocks, so we are very confident that we will beat by a considerable margin the target period of eight years and that we will have destroyed all our stock by 2013.
	Finally, I should say that new clause 1 is undesirable because if the Bill were to be thus amended, it would be required to go through a process of ping-pong with the other place. That is not, of itself, a precondition that means we should not amend the Bill, but it might be a more significant consideration at this particular point, especially given that nobody has yet really argued that this is an essential new clause.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for his helpful clarification. Can he go further by assuring us that annual reports will be made to Parliament detailing the progress on decommissioning the stockpile?

Chris Bryant: Annual reports certainly will be made, because that is provided for in the article. I am therefore happy to undertake that the report that we have to make under the convention will be made available to Parliament too. Thus, I very much hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) will not press this new clause to a Division and will not take the approach he took to the previous amendment, which he suddenly did press to a vote.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and, in particular, for the assurance that article 7 of the convention, in itself, provides a legally binding instrument to govern what the United Kingdom has to do in respect of stockpiles. In view of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	 Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Schedule s 1 to 3 agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill, as amended, reported.
	 Bill, as amended, in the Committees, considered.
	 Third Reading

Chris Bryant: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I hope that all hon. Members will agree that this is an important piece of legislation. Interestingly, the tone of this debate has been very different from that of any debate we would have had about such a matter a mere four, five or six years ago. Then, people would have argued much more forcefully for retaining cluster munitions as an essential tool of the trade necessary to our armed forces. The facts that have emerged over the past few years have changed people's minds: the fact that a third of those most affected by cluster munitions have been children; the fact that thousands of people are killed by these weapons not only in the process of war, but in many cases a long time after the war because cluster submunitions lie around unexploded; and the fact that at least 60 per cent. of those who have been killed or maimed were not in the field of combat but were engaged in their ordinary daily business. Those things have made many people-those of a military disposition or career, as well as those who have worked for non-governmental organisations-conscious of the fact that we needed to change how we engage with this issue.
	I pay tribute to the Norwegian Government, who were key in asserting the Oslo declaration and trying to persuade everybody to come forward with the convention; to the Irish Government, who brought together the diplomatic conference in Dublin; and to our own Prime Minister, who played a specific role in brokering a deal that meant that it was possible for the convention to be agreed. As we have discussed this afternoon, the Bill has come about in large measure because of the necessity to provide legal certainty for the personnel of armed forces that have decided not to use cluster munitions who may be operating alongside personnel from countries that have not taken that decision. I very much hope that we will be able to make progress as swiftly as possible and that all countries-certainly all our allies-will sign up to and ratify the convention.
	I am grateful for the work that has been done on this Bill by people in the Foreign Office, who are not often involved in introducing legislation. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who has conducted the debate in a spirit of fair-minded probing, as of course have all hon. Members. I very much hope that we will be able to agree to give the Bill its Third Reading.

David Lidington: Conservative Members are happy to welcome the Bill on to the statute book. As the Minister fairly pointed out, this debate would previously have been conducted on different terms by both his Front-Bench team and mine. There is now much greater parliamentary and public recognition of the appalling number of casualties that cluster weapons inflict, mostly on civilians and often on children. What has also changed is that our armed forces and the Ministry of Defence have felt able to accommodate a ban on cluster munitions without significantly impairing the effectiveness of our defence preparedness. The Bill's provisions to protect the position of British servicemen and women engaged on joint operations with allied countries that have yet to ratify the convention on cluster munitions are particularly important.
	We currently devote a great deal of time and attention to weapons proliferation issues. We also debate the rising threat of nuclear proliferation and chemical and biological risks, the need for progress to be made in tackling the trade in small arms and the very slow progress being made towards those objectives. Therefore, it is good that this evening we are able to mark a small step towards ridding the world of at least one particularly unpleasant category of lethal weapon.

Edward Davey: At the moment, British politics, and this place in particular, is held in low regard by the public. We are about to enter a period when partisan politics will be at their greatest, because it will be election time. This Bill and today's debate have shown this Parliament at its best and have shown how parties can work together to secure things about which people out there have campaigned. This measure is a response to the ordinary people who have written to MPs in this country-and other countries, to be fair-arguing for a change in the law in order to ban such weapons. It is a welcome move for that reason in itself.
	The substance of the Bill is a fantastic development. We are leading the way. This country, working with Norway, Ireland and the 30 other countries that have now signed and ratified the convention, are leading the way to ridding the world of these appalling weapons-weapons that have caused such destruction and have served almost no military purpose. Let us be absolutely clear: all the evidence, from all the groups that have considered and studied this matter, shows that these weapons achieve almost nothing militarily. The vast majority of people who have been killed by these weapons-I have seen figures ranging from 85 to 98 per cent.-have been civilians. As the Minister rightly said, these weapons leave a legacy that lasts for years and that might still be with us for decades to come.
	I hope that, having passed this legislation, Britain will now do two things. I hope that we will ensure that where our forces have used cluster munitions we take responsibility for clearing them up and ensure that they are not left littering the farms and lands of other countries. I also hope that we will give further leadership on the convention, as many countries and friends across the world have yet to sign the convention. This Bill is a first step, and we have taken it, but we have to go further. Having listened to and read the Minister's speeches, I know that he is committed to doing just that. He has shown good leadership in wanting to use our diplomatic good offices to push that aim with our friends and allies. I hope and believe that that wish is shared across all the parties. We have a responsibility now to move on from this good legislation and to give that global leadership. I strongly support the Bill.

Mark Durkan: When the Minister opened this debate, he rightly paid tribute to the Norwegian Government's leadership in the Oslo process towards achieving the convention, which is supported by the Bill. He also acknowledged the role of the Irish Government in the diplomatic conference in Dublin. On Second Reading last week, I put on record the role in steering that conference played by Daithi O'Ceallaigh-a man who is known to many in this House as a former Irish ambassador in this city.
	The Minister also rightly identified the important, decisive and positive role played in the Dublin diplomatic conference by the decisions of our Prime Minister. I know that the Prime Minister was dealing with conflicting impulses and advice from within the Government system. Various establishments had their views, as other hon. Members have reflected in their speeches, but the Prime Minister nevertheless made the positive decision to clarify the UK position and to move from the wrong side of the argument on this significant and effective convention to the right side.
	It is right that we should pay tribute to all the non-governmental organisations and others who have campaigned over many years for a convention and ban, such as the Cluster Munition Coalition and the various bodies that made up that coalition. It is right to acknowledge the long-standing role played by many hon. Members, including some who will not be standing again in the election, in the long fight to extend the ban on land mines to cluster munitions-these aerial land mines, with all of their consequences. Credit for that campaign extends to Members in another place, too, who also campaigned very positively.
	Back in 2008, in the build-up to the Dublin diplomatic conference, when it looked as though the British Government were going to be on the wrong side of the argument, I tabled an early-day motion along with other hon. Members of all parties. I was glad at that time that there were various YouTube video campaigns in support of that, including from SDLP Youth. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rightly acknowledged the decisive contribution that has been made to our understanding of the issue, what Governments worldwide are committing themselves to through the wider convention, and what the House and the other place have done through this Bill.
	It is right and proper that, as we come to the close of this Parliament, we can all look to the Bill as a positive reflection of the dynamics of a democracy and all the different influences and inputs possible. It does not just reflect different interests, outlooks and motivations in this jurisdiction; it reflects and upholds the rights-in particular, the right to life-of vulnerable people in other territories. As other Members have said, cluster bombs have an impact not just in a conflict period but long afterwards, and they take a high toll on the limbs and lives of children. A very high number of women are affected, too, because it is they who go into the fields to work and into the territories to try to find water. Many people around the world are united in saying that there ought to be a law against these weapons and, finally and wisely, that is what we have.

William Cash: If I have taken up a somewhat disproportionate amount of time on this Bill, I make no apology whatever for having done so-despite the deputy Chief Whip's obvious concern. We need to give proper consideration to Bills in this House, but we do not do so, and more often than not legislation that some would deem to be less important than this Bill-I happen to believe that it is very important-gets next to no consideration, because the Government programme and guillotine Bills in a totally irresponsible manner. Indeed, had some of us on the Opposition Benches not asked some pertinent questions, we would not have had answers on a number of matters.
	We have made a lot of progress today, and I am glad of that because this measure affects innocent people, including children. Those who are concerned about children in whose territories cluster munitions are accumulated will want to know not only that we have passed the Bill but that we will be prepared to take the action necessary to clear the ground. It is one thing to pass legislation, but another to give it practical effect. We have already heard enough today about the complexities that will undoubtedly cause difficulties in achieving certainty, and not merely certainty about the legal position. I am deeply worried for our servicemen, because I think that they will get caught up in this. The penalty of 14 years' imprisonment is very severe and the Bill has so many problems in it that people will be caught up unnecessarily despite its good intentions and, I hope, its good results.
	Let me turn to the precedents for such Bills. The mustard gas that was used in the first world war was eventually outlawed, although not, of course, by Saddam Hussein. The fact is that such action on cluster munitions, which cause unnecessary and unreasonable deaths, is resisted by certain elements of our armed forces, so I am told. Despite the fact that the House of Commons, by consensus, has agreed that this Bill should go through, they do not believe that it is in the interests of our tactical and strategic operations to have such legislation.
	Passing a law is a useful step, but it will not necessarily have the effect of protecting the innocent or, indeed, of avoiding complications for servicemen. Those are the crucial questions and it would be extremely helpful if the Minister-if he would listen for a second-would be good enough to put in the Library of the House of Commons the manual or the guidance to which he referred. When this Bill has been enacted and comes into force, its practicality will be tested. I, for one, would like the Minister to confirm that he is prepared to put the manual, with appropriate guidance, into the Library so that we may compare the manner in which the Government have alleged that the Bill will be effective with the manner in which they implement it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with  an  amendment.

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers)  Bill [ Lords]

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
	 Third Reading

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is a great pleasure to guide this Bill through its final stages, because it is a very good example of the valuable, expert work that the Law Commission has done to simplify difficult and technical areas of the law and to make them more accessible and more obviously relevant to ordinary people in ordinary situations. I thank the commission for all its hard work on this project. Although our procedures remain unchanged, this Bill was the second candidate to trial a new procedure in the other place for appropriate Law Commission Bills, which I hope will help further to support the commission's work in making the law more modern and effective.
	The procedures in the Bill will allow the liability of the insured and the insurer to be resolved in just one set of proceedings. If the insured and the insurer are liable, the insurer will pay compensation directly to the third party who will, under the Bill, have been put in the shoes of the insured. The Bill is intended to clarify and simplify the law. It will therefore result in the quicker and cheaper resolution of claims. On that basis, I commend to the House this Bill, which is likely to be the final Bill that I shall take through the House.

Henry Bellingham: I join the Minister in paying tribute to the Law Commission for coming up with this Bill under the new, expedited procedure. Let me also declare an interest as a former practising barrister. I want to put on record my gratitude to the Minister for the way in which she has handled not only this Bill but many others, as this might be my last opportunity to thank her personally from the Dispatch Box for her work and to wish her well for the future. I understand that she will be in charge of the Department during the Dissolution period, after which it could fall to another party to take over from her. That is the Conservatives' hope, but we wish her well for the future anyway, and we hope very much that during those four weeks or so she does not cause any major problems, but makes sure that there is a steady hand on the tiller.
	As the Minister has pointed out, the Bill is part of the new, expedited procedure for bringing through Parliament Law Commission Bills that command widespread consensus and support. It follows in the footsteps of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009-complex legislation that went through the House with the minimum of fuss. The Bill is important because it builds on the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, which overturned the original, common law privity of contract doctrine, which stated clearly that no insurance liability was directly enforceable by a third party against an insurer. Real problems accrued as a result of that well-established principle, and the introduction of the 1930 Act reflected how the economy and society were moving on, not least with the proliferation of cars on the roads. A number of insured people were, sadly, getting killed, and third parties had to take over those insured rights against insurance companies.
	It is not surprising that there have been one or two problems with the 1930 Act, as 80 years have intervened since then, in which time there have been many changes to our economy and legal system. If the insured were a dissolved company that had been struck off the register, the third party had to restore it to the register in order to mount a successful claim. That took time and cost money, and there was no need for that to happen. That is one of several key issues that the Bill addresses. All of the key changes are very straightforward and command widespread support. It was noticeable, during the consultation process, that people in all parts of the industry, including practitioners and other interested parties, spoke with one voice. It is quite a phenomenon to have everyone singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.
	I should like to know from the Minister what lessons have been learned from the new procedure. The Bill was first mooted as long ago as 1998, in a Law Commission report, but it has taken 12 years to come before the House in its present form. I hope that it will be on the statute book very soon. How much quicker could that progress have been made if we had had in place the new procedures that were brought in under the Law Commission Act 2009 for expediting such Bills through Parliament? Could we have got it through Parliament in a couple of years, or even less time?
	The Minister mentioned in a letter that she sent to me after our Committee proceedings that her Department would soon lay before the House a new protocol under the Law Commission Act 2009. Will she tell us whether it will be laid before Dissolution? I want to press her on an issue that I raised in Committee that she did not mention in her letter to me of 15 March, which refers to the Law Commission paper, "Insurance Contract Law: Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Breach of Warranty by the Insured". That important report will give rise to legislation that could, to some extent, be allied to parts of this Bill, and I should like to know what happened to that report and whether a Bill will be coming forward in the near future.
	The Bill is small but important. It builds on the 1930 Act, as I have said, and it will help a number of our constituents at times when their lives have become a complete misery because of the complexity of the existing law. It will take a small step towards alleviating that misery, and that is why the Conservatives are very pleased to support it.

David Heath: The Bill is not unimportant and neither is it lacking in complexity, but it is very welcome and, I hope, lacking in political controversy. It was therefore an extremely good candidate for the accelerated procedure that was used. We in this place cannot subcontract our scrutiny of legislation, but we can subcontract much of the hard work on its preparation and on the technical issues that must be addressed. We could put such work in no safer hands than those of the Law Commission, which has done an extremely good job in that regard and on many other matters that have come before us.
	I hope that a lot more of the Law Commission's backlog of recommendations will be put through a similar procedure in short order. The Lord Chancellor indicated recently that he regrets the fact that there is still a backlog and that there has been no opportunity to put more before the House. It is time we did so, because it is pointless for such an extremely learned and capable organisation to make recommendations if we cannot find the time to legislate on properly.
	I conclude by noting that the Minister and I have served on many Bills over recent years. I have not always agreed with every position she has taken, and she has not always agreed with every position I have taken, but I have enormous respect for the work she has done and I thank her on behalf of the House for the efforts she has put into the Ministry. I really hope that during the period when she is in charge nothing happens to make her regret her current position.
	I hope the Bill can now pass.

Bridget Prentice: With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply quickly to the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). First, I thank them very much indeed for their kind words, which are much appreciated. I put on record my thanks to both of them and their colleagues, who have served on a variety of Bills with me. They have always been courteous and as supportive as they could be from their different positions. I very much appreciated that.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked what lessons had been learned. We certainly think the system is a much more effective tool for getting important but uncontroversial parts of the law through the House. I hope it will become a permanent solution and that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested, we will use it more often.
	I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about the length of time the measure has taken. For me, the most frustrating thing about being in government is how long it can take for a piece of legislation to get from point A to final implementation. The hon. Gentleman will understand the tenor of my remarks when I say that I hope he never has that experience. I appreciate that the time taken was not of the best; nevertheless such delay is not confined to this Government or to this period of office, and I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are doing everything to try to reduce the delays and make sure that such legislation goes through more speedily using the new system.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the protocol. It is still being put together, but I hope we can publish it before the election, or perhaps during my period looking after the shop. I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome have sight of it as soon as possible.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will deal with motions 5, 6, 7 and 8 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
	That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80BB to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
	That the draft Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.
	That the draft Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (General) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved. -(Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Exeter and Devon (Structural Changes) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved. -(Helen Jones.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 163.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved. -(Helen Jones.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 171.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Education

That the draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments) (England and Wales) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved. -(Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 2010 (S.I., 2010, No. 485), dated 1 March 2010, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 March, be approved. -(Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.

Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill (Money)

Queen's recommendation signified.

Kevin Brennan: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Office of Fair Trading in consequence of the Act.
	The Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and received a Second Reading on 5 March. It awaits a date for Committee. The Bill provides for the creation of a grocery market ombudsman and sets out a number of rules against which the ombudsman will monitor and enforce compliance with the grocery supply code of practice. It is anticipated that the Bill will result in expenditure being incurred by the Office of Fair Trading, which will be paid out of money provided by Parliament. Accordingly, a money resolution is required so that the Bill may be debated in Committee. I understand that it is supported by all the Front Benchers of all the major parties and was unopposed on Second Reading.

David Heath: The Minister is supported by most sensible people on both dies of the House. However, can he explain why he is introducing a money resolution and a Ways and Means motion today given that, as far as I know, there is no indication that the Government are going to provide any extra time for private Members' Bills in order to allow this Bill to make progress? That is what is needed.

Kevin Brennan: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see about that. However, we will, of course, need to ensure that the views expressed by respondents to the consultation are adequately reflected in the legislation that will bring the ombudsman into being. The provision of funding to the Office of Fair Trading for expenditure incurred for enforcement of the grocery supply code of practice is necessary if the aims of the Bill are to be achieved. I commend the resolution to the House.

John Penrose: I rise merely to say that Conservative Members are entirely in tune with these provisions. We have already made any points that we wanted to make when the Bill was debated a couple of Fridays ago. I endorse the Minister's point that there is support for it on my side of the House, and we therefore do not propose to oppose the resolution.

Andrew George: As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it is a pity that the Government have not indicated that they will give us the extra time needed to allow private Members' Bills that have support on both sides of the House to proceed. Despite that rather substantial difficulty, I certainly concur with the comments of the Minister and his opposite number. Liberal Democrat Members would like to the Bill to proceed as quickly as possible.

Christopher Chope: I spoke against this Bill on Second Reading, albeit quite briefly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) spoke against it at greater length. Unfortunately, he is not here this evening because he is with a school party visiting the holocaust memorials in Germany. However, I have been able to communicate with him today by telephone, and I know that he shares my reservations about the financial aspect of the Bill, which is what the resolution deals with-the expenditure of more taxpayers' money.
	It is ironic that on the eve of the Budget, when the Chancellor will doubtless reveal that we are seriously in the red as a country and will have to reduce expenditure and increase taxes, we can be thinking of allowing such a provision to go through, perhaps unopposed, on the basis that it is a good idea. Up and down the country, there are families who are saying, "This is desirable, and we'd like to do it, but we can't afford it." When are we going to hear any Front Bencher say, "It may be desirable, and we are in favour of it, but we just can't afford it"? I am contributing to this debate in the hope that in the wind-ups the Minister will explain why, when the Government are in such a parlous position in relation to the economy, they think that the expenditure of money on this proposition is worth while and should go ahead irrespective of whether it can be afforded.
	Clause 11(1) says:
	"The OFT must directly fund all the costs associated with the Ombudsman."
	One way of avoiding my criticisms of the Bill, certainly as regards its finances, would be to say that the Office of Fair Trading would have to make compensatory savings for any expenditure incurred as a result of its provisions. As I understand it, that is the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) put forward during the Second Reading debate when he said that he wanted a much leaner and meaner arrangement for dealing with this within the OFT itself. Obviously, if the OFT were able to find compensatory savings, there would not be any additional expenditure for the taxpayer as a result of the Bill, and this money resolution might not be necessary.
	I took the liberty of having a peek at the OFT's annual report and resource accounts for the last financial year, and I saw that it had a net operating cost of some £56 million. One might have thought that it might be able to find some savings from within that enormous sum of expenditure. I then looked to see whether any of those savings might come from a different remuneration deal for the key players in this organisation, and I saw that last year its chief executive was paid in the salary range of £270,000 to £275,000 and its chairman was paid in the salary range of £170,000 to £175,000. It should not be beyond the wit of the OFT to find some savings to enable the Bill to be carried through without additional cost to the taxpayer.
	The Ways and Means motion, which we will discuss shortly, deals with what I think is even worse than a direct imposition on the taxpayer-a back-handed way of forcing up the prices of goods in the supermarkets through a levy on grocery operators. In the meantime, it is for the Government to assert why they believe that this measure is affordable and to explain more than the Minister has done so far what their intentions are in relation to the future passage of the Bill through this House and the other place. It is not satisfactory to say that there is no more time available for private Members' business, as there could have been if the amendment to the Government's plans moved so ably earlier this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone)-I am pleased to see him in his place-had been accepted. That would have made it possible to have had debates on private Members' business this coming Friday, but that was ruled out by the Government. I hope that in winding up this short debate the Minister will at least tell us whether he has plans for the Bill to proceed with a Report stage and Third Reading in this House before Dissolution.

Peter Bone: Was my hon. Friend surprised by the speed with which the Minister moved the motion? [Hon. Members: "You missed it!"] That is the point-I missed it because he was so speedy. Is the crux of my hon. Friend's argument that there is no need for this money resolution because savings could be made elsewhere?

Christopher Chope: On too many occasions, the Government try to smuggle business through this House. They seem to be under the impression that because there can be some superficial deal between the Front Benchers, people outside need not be expected to be able to have a say. We know that this Bill is strongly opposed by the British Retail Consortium-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could now come back to the money resolution.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	One of the reasons why the BRC and other organisations oppose the Bill is that they think that it is going to impose extra burdens on the taxpayer. The argument does not need to be developed at any great length, but it is one of principle. How many people in the House are in tune with people outside in recognising that we are in a dire financial crisis and that the issue of affordability should be taken seriously? In my humble submission, the Bill, however desirable it might be, is unaffordable. That is why I am against the money resolution.

David Drew: I rise to make two quick points in opposition to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Having followed the issue through from the outset, my understanding is that most of the expenditure involved is, in a sense, historical, because the OFT has done its work. It was inevitable that the Government would have to bring the resolution forward, but the Bill will not incur much expenditure.
	More importantly, what is the point of having an Office of Fair Trading if we are not going to listen to its recommendations? I know that that thought has steeled my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who introduced this excellent Bill, and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who has led the campaign admirably. It is only right that we see the Bill through, and I hope that the money resolution will be passed unanimously. There is clearly a view that it is needed, and needed now.

William Cash: I rise simply to say that I am concerned, because of what the Minister has said and the chicanery that I see at work, to know whether there has been an attempt to manoeuvre procedures in order to prevent us from considering the Bill properly in the normal fashion. Will it simply be left to the wash-up so that it goes through without any consideration? I believe the Bill has merit, but the way it is being taken through has none.

Albert Owen: I am pleased to follow, and agree with, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash): as the Member in charge of the Bill, I believe that it is has a lot of merit. We had an honest and open debate about it, in which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) took part and tried to muster support against it but failed miserably. The only supporter that he had is in Germany today; he was unable even to get him into this country to oppose the Bill.
	I support the money resolution. We need to move forward, and I believe that we are building a strong consensus. The hon. Member for Christchurch can name only the British Retail Consortium to support his point, and only senior members of that. Many of its individual members support the Bill. I believe that the supermarkets will come on board and the Bill will be the way forward, but it does have some start-up costs.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman expect the Bill to get on to the statute book during this Parliament, and if so, by what means?

Albert Owen: I am certainly working through the procedures, and that is why we are here tonight. The Government have agreed to give the Bill time, and I will try to get it into Committee on the 30th of this month if the resolution is passed. I hope we can move forward as quickly as possible.
	The principle of the Bill is sound. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, there are some start-up costs to get the scheme going. I describe the Bill and the grocery market as a game of rugby. We need to have a referee, and that referee needs help and support. The money resolution will provide that.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the inevitable inference from what the Conservatives who oppose the Bill say is that economic difficulties should be unloaded on to small grocery stores? In other words, those Members' solution to the recession is to carry on subjugating the people who will be least able to afford to continue running their businesses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that this is not the time to open up that kind of debate.

Albert Owen: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a wide debate on the Bill, and I have to correct the hon. Gentleman-it is not the Conservative party that is against the Bill; it is in favour of it. One or two of its members, only one of whom is in the country at the moment, oppose it.

Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for moving the Bill forward. In the fine tradition of naming these watchdogs, such as Ofcom and Ofgas, may I proffer a name for the new watchdog body for the supermarkets of Oftrolley?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House might just think about that for a moment.

Albert Owen: I am sure we will all consider that, but I want the House to think seriously about the money resolution and support it.

Kevin Brennan: I understand the opposition of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to any public expenditure on a lot of matters that are brought before the House, but there is a wide consensus behind the Bill across the country-outside the House as well as inside. A lot of evidence was taken and presented to the Government before we decided to support the Bill and the creation of a grocery ombudsman. The debate on the ways and means motion may answer some of the questions that have been raised during this debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill (Ways and Means)

Kevin Brennan: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill, it is expedient to authorise-
	(1) arrangements to raise money from retailers to cover costs associated with the Grocery Market Ombudsman, and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
	As we have just heard, the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) received its Second Reading on 5 March. It provides for the creation of a grocery market ombudsman and sets out a number of rules against which the ombudsman would monitor and enforce compliance with the code. It will enable the ombudsman to raise money from retailers to cover costs associated with the grocery market ombudsman, and it will provide for payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. Accordingly, a Ways and Means motion is required in order that the Bill can be debated in Committee. I commend the motion to the House.

John Penrose: I rise merely to reiterate my earlier point that the Conservative party is in favour of the principle behind the Bill. We have one or two very small quibbles to be dealt with in Committee, but that is all. We are entirely behind the principle, so we will not oppose the motion.

David Drew: Again, I will not delay the House for long. The motion is at the kernel of the argument about this whole issue. The supermarkets that oppose the Bill, which of course not all do, made it abundantly clear that they thought it was an expensive luxury. The reality is that the figure that has always been quoted is some £5 million, which everybody who is fair-minded would say is a drop in the ocean compared with supermarkets' profits, let alone their turnover. It is absolutely right and proper that we take the Ways and Means motion through.

Dan Rogerson: I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) have done on this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we are discussing now is the answer to those who raised questions in the previous debate? The provisions in the Bill will pull in money to put in place the regulation that we want to see.

David Drew: Yes, of course, and that is the whole point of bringing forward the motion.

Elfyn Llwyd: In fact, the £5 million to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) referred is a minuscule proportion of the rates advantage that large shops have over small retailers. It is a drop in the ocean; there is no argument about that.

David Drew: That is why I think this motion should be agreed to-unanimously, I hope. This is important legislation, and the motion is about the House doing what it does best. We are bringing fairness and justice to the trade. Those of us who have studied that trade for some time know that the unfairnesses are legion and that they have grown over time. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said in the debate on the previous motion, we need to bring some fairness back into the grocery trade overall, and this is the legislation to do that.

Andrew George: I support the Minister and his opposite number on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). I support the motion and look forward to debating the Bill in Committee on 30 March. The motion relates to clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill, which are central to it. When the Competition Commission produced a report on the issue two years ago, it clearly identified that supermarkets were passing unexpected costs on to their suppliers, which has an impact on the ability of the supply chain to innovate and a considerable knock-on effect for consumers.
	As I said, the motion is central to the Bill, which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) introduced. I hope that we can make important progress next week, and that the Minister will find ways to hasten the Bill's passage to ensure that it is enacted before we go for a general election.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a most important Bill for rural constituencies? My constituents who are involved in agriculture are absolutely desperate for a fairer deal when they supply the large supermarkets, and this Bill can enable that. For that, the Ways and Means arrangements in the motion are vital.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right to say that the motion is fundamental. I hope that the Minister has heard the wide support for the Bill, of which I know he is aware, and that he will enable the Bill to be enacted before the general election.

Albert Owen: I rise briefly to echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). This motion is the crux of the Bill. It dispels the myth that the Bill will be costly, a notion that many have propagated, particularly when they have been lobbied hard by the larger supermarkets. It is not going to be costly; it will be financed on a formula that withstood scrutiny and which the Competition Commission itself recommended. It is about fair trading and fairness to the suppliers, and it will give better choice to the consumer.

David Heath: The Bill will be very costly to the supermarkets if the ombudsman does its job properly and gives a fair deal to our primary producers, particularly those in the dairy industry in constituencies such as mine, and quite rightly too, because that will be fair.

Albert Owen: As I said in the previous debate, we are dealing with a money resolution and a Ways and Means motion, but the issue is fairness, so the hon. Gentleman is right. However, I believe that the supermarkets, which have adopted the new code, will be fair, that that will benefit our suppliers, and that consumers will benefit as a result.
	The Bill is about fair dealing. Some of the supermarkets are already adhering to that, and I think they will all come on board. Tonight I support my hon. Friend the Minister, who is taking the matter forward and who supports the principle. We have great consensus across the House and have united the Front Benchers. I hope the motion is passed tonight and that we can get on with talking about the details in the Bill. As I said, there is much consensus and good will, so let us move that forward.

Christopher Chope: Again, I find myself almost in a minority of one, but that will not inhibit me in saying what I am going to say, because I know that what I say is echoed by Sainsbury's and Tesco and a whole lot of major supermarkets. Why are they major supermarkets? Because they have the confidence of their customers and they deliver good quality at keen prices. The supermarket market is very active, with firms coming and going depending on how they perform. Our successful supermarkets are the ones that operate in favour of the consumer, on behalf of whom I speak unapologetically. Other hon. Members have spoken on behalf of the producers.

Dan Rogerson: I want to clarify something. The hon. Gentleman said in the previous debate that he thought the Bill had merit, but he now seems to be saying that the whole premise is incorrect. I am intrigued.

Christopher Chope: I never said that I thought the Bill had merits; one of my hon. Friends did. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the report of my speech on Second Reading, he would see that I do not find any merit in the Bill.
	I am sure that the problem should and could be addressed by the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. I do not think that the Bill is the solution.
	In particular, what I do not like about the aspect of the Bill that we are discussing is the fact that the measure will be financed by a levy on the supermarkets. That levy will be of unlimited extent, as the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination said when she referred to the issue on Second Reading. She also said:
	We are determined not to place any unnecessary costs on business, particularly in a period of economic difficulty. That is one of the reasons why we are consulting on the scope, scale and responsibilities of the new ombudsman. We want to make sure that we get this right.-[ Official Report, 5 March 2010; Vol. 506, c. 1164.]
	The Government have got the cart before the horse: they should have consulted and thought through the issue before the legislation was brought forward. It should have been sorted out before the Ways and Means motion was brought before us. Under the Bill, if it ever becomes law, there will be no limit to the amount of money that could be spent by the ombudsman, and therefore to the costs that could be imposed on supermarkets and their customers.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman is slightly misrepresenting the formula, which says, from memory, that each of the 11 large supermarkets will contribute 0.005 per cent. of its turnover under the scheme. Those that will pay the most are those that are referred to the ombudsman the most. All those supermarkets accept the code of practice, so they have nothing to fear unless they breach contracts or cases are taken up by the ombudsman. The hon. Gentleman is, I feel, misleading the consumer when he says he thinks that there will be additional costs placed on them, or on the goods. The good supermarkets will take that on board, and we will see fair trading.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If there are additional costs, I do not see how they will not have to be borne by somebody. If they are not borne by the supermarkets, they will have to be passed on to their customers. The hon. Gentleman refers to the reimbursement formula; I will not trouble the House by reading out the best part of 40 lines in clause 12 that set out the formula in great detail. It is clear from those provisions in his Bill that the reimbursement formula is at large. That is why the Minister said what she did when summing up the debate on Second Reading. There is still great uncertainty about the exact basis on which the money will be raised and recovered by the ombudsman.
	Nobody can dispute that any person appointed ombudsman is likely to want to increase their empire, rather than do themselves out of a job. That is the nature of Parkinson's law.

Chris Ruane: Cecil?

Christopher Chope: Lord Parkinson of Carnforth would be flattered to be thought the author of Parkinson's law, but those of us of a certain age remember its real author. Nothing has changed since that law was discovered: the instinct for the public sector, in particular, to grow like Topsy, and to use every power that it is given to grow its own empire, is apparent. Indeed, the latest figures that I have seen show that while private sector employment has fallen by about 500,000 over the past year, there has been an increase in public sector employment. Obviously, there are some people in the House who would like the public sector to grow even larger, and obviously-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please come back to the motion before the House?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the public sector grows any larger, it will be even more of a burden on the people who are paying, and the point of the motion that we are discussing is that, ultimately, the people who will pay are the consumers.
	As the supermarkets have said, the Bill is misconceived, because it is helping the suppliers and attacking the consumer interests. Some of those suppliers are much larger international conglomerates than the supermarkets themselves. I think it is very sad that the House is not prepared to leave the retail grocery industry alone and let it get on with it, because it is one of the most successful and vibrant parts of our economy. There are many people living elsewhere in Europe, and further afield, who envy us the quality and value that we get from our supermarkets.
	I fear that the Bill will enable an interfering ombudsman, rather like a self-financing regulatory authority, to expand an empire and to impose arbitrary penalties and the substantial and expanding costs of his office on the supermarkets. Inevitably, the supermarkets either will be made less competitive or will have to pass on those costs to their customers. In my submission, it is a matter of basic economics, and I hope that the House will therefore reject this Ways and Means motion. If there is a silver lining, it is that if the Bill goes to Committee, we will at least be able to see, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) tables his amendments, exactly how much he would like to constrain the Bill, so that it can deliver a leaner and meaner solution.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have not heard such a load of rubbish in many years.

Peter Bone: I do not believe that!

Elfyn Llwyd: Well, we do hear a lot of rubbish in this place-that is quite right.
	In my respectful submission, the £5 million that was posited is a small price to pay to ensure a fair deal for suppliers. Let us cut to the chase. We are talking about small and medium-sized farms, which are at a competitive disadvantage. Typically, they sell milk, for example, to supermarkets, often at cost price. They say, We carry on doing that because at least there's a cash flow involved. At least we can more or less pay our bills. There's not much profit at the end of the year, but at least we can pay our bills. We can do that now, but the next generation will not be following us.
	At the end of the day, by adopting the Bill we are trying to stem the way in which the dairy industry in particular is being decimated by unfair competitive advantages. Other parts of the agricultural industry are affected as well. I think it is a splendid Bill, and I congratulate the Member in charge, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), on bringing it to the House.

William Cash: I happen to agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hear on the grapevine, among dairy farmers, that it is very difficult for them to take a position towards the supermarkets. The supermarkets have so much control over their lives that it is almost impossible for them to resist the basis of the monopoly about which I shall speak in a moment.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. Some years ago, I went to see Lord Bach to complain about the situation. Although I had enough evidence, I did not have names and addresses of suppliers, because they were afraid to supply them. He said, If you come back with some suppliers who are prepared to stand up and be counted, we can do something. As I said, however, the point is that at least they are getting some form of cash flow that is keeping them just above water. That is not the basis on which to look forward-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but he is in danger of moving towards a Second Reading debate. This, actually, is simply about the financing of the arrangements.

Elfyn Llwyd: As I was saying, the £5 million, to me, seems a fair figure taken in the round. I fully support the Bill-

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Elfyn Llwyd: In a moment! [Hon. Members: Ooh!] The hon. Gentleman is a serial intervener-Lembit the Intervener, as he is known in Montgomeryshire. I shall briefly finish my point, having been admonished by the Chair. This is a good Bill, and I hope it can see the light of day and make the statute book before we rise for the forthcoming skirmish.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging my enthusiasm for standing up for the constituency that I love-Montgomeryshire. On this occasion, I simply ask whether he agrees that this small sum provided through the Ways and Means arrangement would not be necessary had the supermarkets taken a more considerate, conciliatory approach towards suppliers, whom they are virtually squeezing out of their livelihoods.

Elfyn Llwyd: I think that that is right. I would also add that it would have helped if the Office of Fair Trading had had a few more teeth.

Christopher Chope: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that, after the foot and mouth disease outbreak, the supermarkets came to the assistance of the dairy industry and offered it more money? The consequence was that the supermarkets were taken to the Competition Commission because it was suggested that they were doing down the consumers.

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, I recall that happening, and I thought it was quite bizarre. The Competition Commission was at fault to take such a stance. Anyway, I support the Bill and I wish it well.

William Cash: I rise to support the general principle of the Bill, but I have to say that I am concerned about the mechanics and what I would describe as chicanery in the conduct of procedures of the House. When I see those on the Front Benches taking positions in advance of a wash-up, I begin to smell a rat. I am concerned, although I do not know for sure whether this is going to happen, that-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman at this stage to withdraw anything, but he has used terms such as chicanery and smell a rat. I think that he ought to be a bit more moderate in his language.

William Cash: I have used that expression in the past, Mr. Deputy Speaker-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not in my presence, I suspect.

William Cash: I am more than happy to moderate my expressions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us be moderate and charming in our language; let us admit that there is sometimes an understanding-I am not saying that there is in this case-between the Front Benches, and that is when I say, Watch out for the silver spoons!
	An important principle is involved. I have listened with interest to other Members, and I strongly believe that free trade is important, as is fair trade. I have seen dairy farmers and, indeed, small businesses in my constituency subjected over and over again to the overarching influence of the uncompetitive strength of the supermarkets. I acknowledge that supermarkets do an enormous amount of good, in terms of what the average person buys and the extent to which they are used, and I understand the argument put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on that point, but the reality is that when enormous supermarkets are sited outside small towns, or when they invade them, the small businesses there dry up. In the high street-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not enjoy interrupting hon. Members when they are in full flow, but this debate is about the funding for the Bill; it is not a Second Reading debate.

William Cash: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but monopoly is about economics, you see, and about financing. It is the very financing that poses the question: Who gets what for what? The bottom line is that £5,000 an hour is nothing for the supermarkets. I would simply say that money speaks. Given the financing and economics involved, the people who suffer are the small businesses and those affected by the use of monopoly power. Farmers, who are often unable to resist the power of the supermarkets because they are so reliant on them, are also affected.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry that my hon. Friend and I are not agreeing, but does he accept that the consequence of this Ways and Means resolution will be a financial burden on the supermarkets which will inevitably be passed on to consumers?

William Cash: I certainly agree that achieving fairness may turn out to have a cost attached to it, but we need to be aware of the monumental profits made by companies such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and others and the effect on small businesses, certainly in Stone. That is not to say that I object to the fact that we have supermarkets, but I do object to the fact that there is an on-cost for the smaller businesses and for dairy farmers.
	When it comes to Ways and Means motions such as this, it is important to try to find a resolution. This does not mean that supermarkets are going to end; this does not mean that they are not going to create competitiveness. However, this also provides an opportunity for those who have a genuine grievance. I have raised matters such as the cost of milk with the Office of Fair Trading. I spoke to the director-general-or whatever he is called-of the competition tribunal and I am deeply worried that it does not work effectively.
	I have some reservations. We saw what happened with Equitable Life, but I am not going to go down that route, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ombudsmen may or may not have a cost, but they do not necessarily produce all the answers. I strongly support the idea of the Bill, which I hope will work in practice and I hope will not do damage to consumers. Without a doubt, I am in favour of the small businesses and the dairy farmers, and I want to be sure that we end up with those people being properly looked after. It is not protectionism, but looking after people in a fair manner.

Peter Bone: I will be brief. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I do not want to talk about the merits of the arguments, although they have been powerfully made. I am sure that the Bill is a good one. The Ways and Means motion will obviously incur a cost to industry, which is part of the debate that arises on the Bill.
	We would not necessarily be in this position if, earlier this year, the House had not amended the Standing Orders. We would have had more time for private Members' business and we could have sat on this-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has immediately gone out of order. We are talking about the funding of the grocery market ombudsman, not the time allocated for debate or any other matter.

Peter Bone: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I can say is that we just cannot go on like this; it is time for change.

Kevin Brennan: I am glad that in calling the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you echoed the maxim of the late great Michael Foot, He can rat, but he can't re-rat.
	The Ways and Means motion, which is what we are debating, even though we have ranged quite widely, is designed to demonstrate how the ombudsman could be funded by a levy on industry. It has wide support across the House. It will be reasonable and proportionate and it will bring value to producers and consumers. That is why I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

PETITIONS

Planning (Chester)

Christine Russell: I am grateful for the opportunity to present a public petition, which is signed by a large number of my constituents in the City of Chester who object to Cheshire West and Chester council's lack of public consultation with local people on the decision to sell county hall and move the council offices to the new headquarters building. The petition was collected by a constituent of mine, Reg Barritt. It states:
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House refer our petition to the relevant Select Committee for Communities and Local Government or other body as you deem appropriate requesting that the body review the effectiveness of the said legislation and guidance concerned with the duty to involve provided by this House with reference to the way local authorities are interpreting and operating that legislation and guidance in the public interest and with regard to our legislated rights.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Humble Petition of the people of Chester in the County of Cheshire being electors of the Local Authority of Cheshire West and Chester,
	 Sheweth, that in the process of our new Local Authority of Cheshire West and Chester planning the disposal of its Chester County Hall in a restricted preferential sale to Chester University, and of making a costly move of its Chester headquarters, on a leasehold agreement, to the new so called 'HQ Building' beside Chester racecourse, the local community has found itself excluded throughout from any meaningful consultation over the plan with Council; and has additionally been denied essential information prior to the completion of the scheme, and subsequent to it, that we are certain we should have been entitled to know.
	 Sheweth,  that this failure by our local authority to consult with its people over this planning matter is in conflict with the legislative requirements and advisory guidance issued by Parliament in the form of, for example, the publication 'Communities in Control-real people, real power', and the 'Action for Empowerment' and 'Duty to Involve' white papers stating a statutory duty for all councils to engage fully and from an early stage with the public over such matters; and that this behaviour towards its public by Cheshire West and Chester Council is, in addition, in conflict with its own published 'Statement of Community Involvement' and the operative interim and draft forms of its 'Sustainable Community Strategy'.
	 Sheweth ,  in addition the validity of this most respectful submission by dutifully reminding this House of the relevance of and of the UK's commitment as a full signatory to the 'European Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters'; this generally being known as 'The Arhus Agreement'.
	 Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House refer our petition to the relevant Select Committee for Communities and Local Government or other body as you deem appropriate requesting that the body review the effectiveness of the said legislation and guidance concerned with the duty to involve provided by this House with reference to the way local authorities are interpreting and operating that legislation and guidance in the public interest and with regard to our legislated rights.
	 And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c. ]
	[P000766]

Wind Farms (Mid Wales)

Lembit �pik: This petition is on a serious issue relating to the development of wind farms. The question of the merits of wind farms is for another time, but through the petition I seek to draw the House's attention to the transportation of thousands of loads by heavy good vehicles through rural mid-Wales, which has not been thought out and will cause all kinds of upset, disruption and perhaps even difficulty for the emergency services.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of Robert A Robinson,
	Sheweth, that the Communities of Mid Wales (in particular Welshpool, Newtown, Guilsfield and Montgomery) are deeply concerned about the effect of the transportation of materials for the building of wind farms in Mid Wales and in particular the effects on the towns mentioned over a sustained period.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will call upon the Government to ensure that a public inquiry into this matter is held before any wind farm development is approved or allowed to take place.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c.
	[P000774]

Financial Assistance Scheme

William Cash: I have the honour to present this petition about the many pensioners-hundreds, if not more-in my constituency who are affected by the matter raised. The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,
	Declares that pensioners who have lost all or a greater part of the pension due to failed occupational pension schemes have not been properly compensated by the Government under the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) due to the failure of pensions regulation, as proven by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the High Court; that at the very least the Government must provide 90% compensation, which is not eroded by regulations and current FAS failings; that indexation should fully reflect that provided by original schemes; that backdating should be to scheme Normal Retirement Age and not an arbitrary May 2004 cut-off date; that a higher tax-free cash limit should be provided, irrespective of scheme asset share, to be paid on request; that access on early retirement is made irrespective of ill health (with an actuarial adjustment); that recognises the pre-retirement scheme revaluation basis; that has the provision of meaningful benefit projections; that recognises the harmful effects of the earnings cap on long-serving members.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure those pensioners are properly compensated 90% or more of the true value of their pension through immediate amendment of the Financial Assistance Scheme.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000771]

Power Station (Blythe Park)

William Cash: The second petition that I have the honour to present relates to the proposal for a gas-fired power station at Blythe Park in my constituency. The petition has well over 1,000 names and is a substantial and controversial issue in my constituency.
	The petition, the wording of which I strongly support, states:
	The Petition of residents of Creswell and the surrounding areas in Staffordshire regarding the Blythe Park gas-fired power station proposal,
	Declares that the Petitioners recognise that the gas-fired power station is completely out of character with the area; the pollution created will be deposited across in and around an area of outstanding beauty; this site has historic and ongoing issues with toxic waste, and any major development will unsettle this waste leading to serious health concerns for the local community; the infrastructure leading to the site is wholly inadequate; the development will have disastrous consequences for local wildlife; following development, the community and surrounding areas will be blighted by significant noise and light pollution; the proposed site for the development is a known flood plain; Staffordshire County Council and Staffordshire Moorlands District Council have already made it officially clear that they completely object to these proposals; and the power source is non-sustainable, costly and not environmentally friendly.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to launch a public inquiry into the proposed Blythe Bridge power station proposal and take further steps to prevent this project from going any further.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000773]

PERSONAL HEARING SYSTEMS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mary Creagh.)

Bob Russell: We all know about the curse of binge drinking, and we all know that when alcohol is taken to excess it causes lasting damage to a person's health. What is not so well known-indeed, it seems to be something of a state secret-is the curse of binge listening to personal music systems, collectively known as MP3s. MP3s are an invention from the last decade of the 20th century that has taken serious hold in the first decade of the third millennium.
	Every day millions of people plug into MP3s, individual music systems that pump music, often very loud music, straight into the ears of users who are oblivious to the fact that they are destroying their hearing. The figures are staggering. It is estimated that 10 million people in the United Kingdom, and more than 100 million in the European Union, have MP3 systems, which are often generically-but wrongly-described as iPods. On the 453 bendy bus travelling to the House of Commons from the Old Kent road at 6.15 this morning, I counted six passengers of the 18 in the section in which I was travelling who were plugged into MP3s.
	It can be said, in blunt terms, that a contemporary 20-year-old serial user of an MP3 will, at the age of 40, have the hearing capacity of someone aged 60. That is the prediction of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. The RNID, as it is more generally called nowadays, very kindly helped me with the background for my speech. Yet whereas over the years there have been countless health warnings about the consequences of alcohol excess, there are effectively no health warnings about the consequences of the excessive use of MP3 personal music systems.
	Regrettably, the Department of Health has washed its hands of the looming man-made disaster affecting the nation's hearing. It has said that health matters resulting from the use of MP3 personal music systems are not matters for the Department of Health! Bizarrely, in a single written answer provided on 24 June last year in response to five detailed questions that I had tabled about MP3 players, one of which specifically urged the Secretary of State for Health to
	take steps to increase levels of public awareness of the potential effects on hearing of listening to personal music players at high noise levels,
	the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), said:
	The safety and regulation of consumer products, such as personal music players is, within Government, primarily a matter for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.
	So there we have it: responsibility for health-related hearing impairment caused by MP3s is not a matter for the Department of Health, but a matter for the right hon. Lord Mandelson, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Lord President of the Council. No doubt we must now add to his ever-lengthening title and Minister for MP3 hearing impairment.
	The Minister of State did graciously go on to add in her written answer:
	The Department welcomes the report of the European Union's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.
	It is good that the European Union is more concerned about this newly identified health risk than seems to be the case with Her Majesty's Government. The Minister's written answer then went on to say:
	The Department, advised by the Health Protection Agency, keeps under review the risks to health which may be attributed to various kinds of noise.
	She concluded with this rallying cry of inertia and inactivity:
	The Department has no plans at present for an information campaign on the risks to hearing posed by the use of personal music players.-[ Official Report, 24 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 1004W.]
	This was not the first time that I had raised my concerns with the Department. I had also tabled parliamentary questions, first in May 2007, and then again in May 2008. On 2 May 2007, I was told that the Department had made no estimate of the number of people using iPods who will suffer hearing impairment as a result. On 6 May 2008, the same Minister, in response to my asking the Secretary of State to commission research into the effects on hearing of the use of personal MP3 players, acknowledged in a written answer that
	It is already widely understood that playing personal audio equipment too loud can damage your hearing.-[ Official Report, 6 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 746W.]
	Thus, Mr. Speaker, it was recognised two years ago, and no doubt earlier, by the Department of Health that personal musical systems were a potential health problem, but it would appear that, two years later, the Government have failed to take any meaningful action. Interestingly, on the same day, I was called at Health Questions and directly challenged the then Secretary of State. This is what I said:
	Audiologists have expressed concern about the potential hearing impairment brought about by young people wearing personal music centres plugged into their ears. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a serious likelihood of hearing impairment affecting those young people at a much earlier stage of their lives, and that there should be an inquiry into what action can be taken to prevent the danger of hearing impairment being brought about by those items of social fashion?
	In his oral response, the Secretary of State, amidst banter-the word Interruption appears twice in the  Hansard report-said at one point:
	I do not think that this issue can be near the top of our agenda, but it does need to be looked at.
	After commenting on other matters relating to music noise, the Secretary of State then concluded with reference to MP3s by saying:
	yes, I do think that we should look into that issue.-[ Official Report, 6 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 570.]
	Almost two years later, will the Minister tonight say what action the Department of Health has taken following the promise that the matter would be looked into? Will the Minister also advise me when-I hope this has happened-his Department published a report by an ad hoc advisory group that I was told in a written answer on 11 June 2007 had been set up to
	advise about the effects of environmental noise on health, which includes the risk to hearing from over exposure to loud noise. This group is currently producing a report on these matters, which is due to be published later this year.?-[ Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 870W.]
	I had asked the then Secretary of State-remember, this is approaching three years ago-what steps her Department had taken to educate people about the risk to their hearing from over-exposure to loud noise and whether she would make a statement. Almost three years on, the answer to that appears to be little to nothing. Three wasted years: three years in which the hearing of millions of British people has been put at risk because the Government failed to take action on what audiologists were aware was happening, and what the Department of Health must have known was happening, if it was paying attention to this emerging and newly identified health risk. If I knew, the Department-with all its expert advisers-must have known as well.
	I was first alerted to the pending hearing doomsday scenario by two audiologists in my Colchester constituency whom I had gone to see on a totally unrelated topic: the switchover to digital hearing aids. In conversation, they said that personal music systems were already destroying the quality of hearing of many young people. I therefore hope that tonight's debate will focus attention on the serious medical time-bomb which is ticking away, very loudly, and that the Government, and those who manufacture and sell MP3 players, will take swift and effective action to make people aware that, at their current levels, in terms of both excessive usage and excessive sound, people are destroying their hearing quality for the rest of their lives. The cost to the national health service in the years to come will be substantial, and the cost to the quality of life of those with seriously impaired hearing cannot be quantified financially.
	The Royal National Institute for Deaf People-the RNID- Britain's largest charity which seeks to help the nation's estimated 9 million people who are deaf or hard of hearing, has launched a Don't Lose the Music campaign, which aims to make sure that people know how and why to protect their hearing while enjoying music. The charity does not want to see the figure of 9 million grow, but it will grow massively as a direct result of MP3 players unless firm action is taken now to deal with the seriousness of the problem. According to figures released by the World Health Organisation, exposure to loud music is the major avoidable cause of permanent hearing loss worldwide. MP3 players are exacerbating the problems on a huge scale. Experts agree that noises over 85 decibels-that is equivalent to a loud alarm clock, heavy traffic or a power drill at close range-will damage hearing over time.
	The RNID has estimated that a high number of people in the UK are at risk of damaging their hearing from leisure noise-MP3 players pose a significant risk in that regard. Research conducted by the RNID in 2006-it is believed that the situation has deteriorated since-suggested that 90 per cent. of young people had experienced the first physical signs of hearing loss, which are dull, fuzzy hearing or temporary tinnitus, after a night out.
	MP3 players must not be blamed for all of this-there are other situations where noise causes problems-but that is no excuse not to take effective action to save users of MP3 players from suffering permanent hearing impairment. Astonishingly, I am advised that the regulations dealing with noise at work do not provide protection for consumers, so that gap in the existing legislation needs to be addressed. We also need other regulations or legislation to deal with the health menace from MP3 players. I am told that it is not unusual for the noise level of MP3 music input directly into the ears to be greater than what would be legally permitted in a factory environment.
	What does MP3 stand for? I thought I ought to ask, and the answer, which has kindly been provided by the RNID, is as follows:
	MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, more commonly referred to as MP3, is a patented digital audio encoding format using a form of lossy data compression. It is a common audio format for consumer audio storage, as well as a de facto standard of digital audio compression for the transfer and playback of music on audio players.
	One can understand why it is called MP3.
	I am chairman of the all-party group on noise reduction, which for many years has promoted awareness of noise issues on the advice of the UK Noise Association, and this is not the first time that I have secured a debate relating to noise. On 21 March 2002-eight years ago almost to the day-I had an Adjournment debate headed Noisy Neighbours. I also wish to draw the House's attention to early-day motion 1154, which I tabled last night and which was published today. It is headed Government Noise Policy Statement and records regret
	that the Noise Policy Statement published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 15 March falls far short of what had been expected and what is required to tackle the increasing levels of noise in society and the range of problems associated with noise, including quality of life and health issues for the people of this country.
	There is clearly a need for a much more determined approach from the Government-a joined-up approach-to tackle noise issues. While the Department of Health has seemingly been very lax in respect of hearing impairment issues relating to MP3 players, both the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport have recognised specific serious matters that need to be addressed, and have addressed them. The Ministry of Defence has a defence hearing working group, whose remit is to ensure that military personnel take precautions in protecting their hearing, not just when training or deployed on active service, but in social situations. When I have been on exercises in this country or overseas-I have seen our troops serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan-I have noted the requirement to wear ear plugs and other ear protectors. The Army has produced a training video containing a section-this relates specifically to the title of tonight's debate-on soldiers' social lives and how MP3 players can damage their hearing. I am told that the video refers to hearing loss as being painless, progressive and permanent. The Army encourages soldiers to embed the culture of valuing their hearing at all times.
	RoSPA-the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents-has informed me that although little hard data are available it is aware that tragedies have occurred when cyclists and pedestrians wearing MP3 players who did not hear the sound of vehicles around them have been killed or injured. The society told me:
	RoSPA's advice is that anyone using an iPod, mobile phone or similar when out walking, jogging or cycling needs to be aware of the risk that they may be 'in a world of their own' and miss the vital clue of an approaching vehicle.
	A second road safety charity, Brake, told me:
	Unfortunately there are no statistics on the number of road casualties MP3s have contributed to or caused, but it is a story that we hear time and time again from our bereaved and seriously injured volunteers.
	It added:
	Distraction, or at least loss of hearing when crossing the road, can be considered a very serious issue indeed.
	I have particular interest in road safety issues as chairman of the all-party road safety group.
	The Department for Transport has been concerned enough about road safety problems associated with people using MP3 players to include the issue in its Think! Road Safety publicity campaign. It has run television adverts aimed at teenagers to raise awareness of the risks.
	Although I have strayed slightly into defence and road safety, which are clearly the preserve of other Departments, I believe that that the experiences of the Defence and Transport Departments are further evidence that the Government need to take a joined-up approach to dealing with the serious consequences of the population's growing widespread use of MP3 players, which are clearly a health hazard in terms of hearing impairment and quality of hearing for millions of our citizens.
	I suggest that the Department for Children, Schools and Families also has an important role because youngsters need to be alerted to the serious dangers to their hearing posed by extensive use of MP3 players.
	There is no evidence that the industry is taking the matter seriously. I was astonished to read in yesterday's  Colchester Gazette a report headed Behave at school and you'll get iPods, which said that pupils at the Clacton Coastal academy will be rewarded for good behaviour with gifts that include iPods. Those running the academy clearly need to be educated about the dangers of giving hearing-destroying prizes to their pupils.
	The prevalence of personal music players is unquestionable. Apple has now sold more than 240 million iPods and it seems as though we cannot go anywhere any more without seeing people using personal music players. Personal music players are all around us and they obviously bring an enormous amount of pleasure to people. My concern is that people are listening to these players at sound levels that are damaging their hearing. There is no need just to take my word on that-it is not at all uncommon to find people on public transport listening to music on their personal music players at such a high level that it almost feels as though we are listening to the music. It seems that people are not aware that something they love could be doing serious damage to their hearing.
	People losing their hearing as a result of listening to personal music players that are too loud is something that will manifest itself in the future as a major public health problem. That has enormous implications not only in health terms but-as the cost of audiology provision will increase, as will the cost of providing hearing aids and other treatment to those who have unnecessarily lost their hearing as a result of listening to personal music players that are too loud-for Britain's economic prosperity. It is already estimated that hearing loss costs the UK economy £13 billion annually through loss of earnings.
	Last September, the European Union's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded a year-long investigation into whether listening to loud music on personal music players damaged people's hearing. Its conclusion was unequivocal-listening to personal music players at high volume over a sustained period of time could lead to permanent hearing loss. As a result of that report, the European Union's Commissioner for Consumer Affairs announced at an RNID press conference that she had mandated the European Union's standardisation bodies to develop new technical safety standards for personal music players with respect to the risk of hearing loss. It will take some time, but the RNID expects that as a result of the action taken in Europe, within two years all MP3 players will be sold with a volume limit of 80dB-a safe level. It is important to state that this is not over-regulation and that the volume limiter is not the work of a nanny state. Users have the option of overriding the volume limit, but it is hoped that having to take that step will provide real encouragement for people to listen to their personal music players at safe levels.
	The work that the European Union has done on this issue is groundbreaking, but this goes beyond regulation. People need to be better educated about the risks that are associated with listening to personal music players at loud volumes. The industry can play a significant role by providing information about how consumers can minimise the risk of damaging their hearing when using personal music players and by providing good-quality headphones with products that do not encourage users to turn up the volume to unsafe levels to drown out background noise.
	This is an issue of corporate responsibility. The sea of white headphones that one sees around suggests that many people are not willing to invest in noise-isolating headphones, and instead stick with the headphones that are provided as standard with personal music players. My concern is that those standard headphones are of such low quality that they encourage users to turn the volume up to unsafe levels to hear the music they want to listen to. Poor-quality headphones are posing a real risk to the hearing of many people who use personal music players. If some of the larger companies provided noise-isolating headphones as standard they would steal a march on their competitors and take a real step forward in terms of corporate responsibility. That would make a real contribution to the hearing health of this nation and would ensure that such companies' present customer base did not stop buying future products because they could not hear them.
	People need to be aware that listening to loud music, particularly on personal music players at a loud level, poses a risk to their health, but at the moment they are not aware of that. I feel strongly that the Government should take up this issue and launch a public awareness campaign. Just as people are aware that smoking can have serious negative consequences for their health, so they should be aware that listening to personal music players at a high volume can seriously damage their hearing. I therefore invite the Minister to launch a Department of Health-co-ordinated approach across Government to deal with the negative health aspects of MP3s through an awareness campaign based on the RNID's Don't Lose the Music campaign. Following discussions with colleagues, the RNID tells me:
	The Department of Health have definitely never run an awareness raising campaign relating to hearing loss and MP3 players.
	The series of parliamentary questions from the past three years that I read out earlier tends to confirm that. It is time that the Department of Health had an awareness campaign. Let tonight mark the launch of such a campaign, so that people will not suffer from hearing problems now or in future.

Phil Hope: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this important debate. I know that he, as chair of the all-party group for noise reduction, has been a strong and passionate campaigner on this issue for many years, in which time he has drawn the House's attention to the long-term risk that personal music systems pose to hearing. From a health perspective, I share his concern. Preserving people's hearing has been, and continues to be, an important issue for the Government.
	I am pleased that our national audiology strategy has reduced waits for audiology tests to an average of two weeks, compared with 26 weeks just three years ago. It is also helping to replace traditional analogue hearing aids with new digital hearing aids as the preferred option for people with hearing problems. I mention those two examples of the transformation of recent years to show that we take this issue very seriously, and rightly so. About one in five adults in England experiences hearing loss, more than a quarter of whom are aged between 16 and 60. We must do all we can to stop preventable hearing loss and to reduce harmful exposure to noise from any source. That is certainly an area in which we can make a difference.
	I know from what I see, and increasingly hear, in my own constituency that MP3 players are very widespread, as the hon. Gentleman said. They are ubiquitous. Many people, especially young people, when listening to bands such as Arcane Enigma and Now There Is Only Carnage-two bands from my constituency-have a tendency to crank up the volume to the maximum possible levels.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned his experience on the bus, when he was travelling to the House for his early start today. Anyone travelling on the London underground will recognise the annoyance when a fellow commuter plays music so loudly that the whole carriage shares a tinny rendition of Jimi Hendrix, Bruce Springsteen, or whatever they are playing. As the hon. Gentleman argues, it is not only a nuisance for other travellers, but a long-term threat to the person's hearing.
	To add to the hon. Gentleman's examples, a report by Eurosafe-the European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion-says that up to one in 10 music listeners risk permanent hearing loss if they listen to a personal music player for more than an hour a week at high volumes over a five-year period. We define high volume as more than 89 dB. Eurosafe estimates that up to 10 million consumers across Europe-a significant proportion from this country-are at risk. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to that figure, too.
	Stories in the UK already suggest that more young people are ending up at audiologists suffering from tinnitus or hearing loss because of exposure to loud music. One audiologist was quoted as saying that he is seeing
	the sort of damage that in the old days would have come from industrial noise.
	The danger is that many young people could find themselves swapping their headphones for hearing aids later in life because of their listening habits.
	I remind the House that sound-induced hearing damage is not just about deafness. It can cause difficulties understanding speech in noisy environments, prolonged or permanent tinnitus, and hypersensitivity to loud sounds, all of which can affect a person's life profoundly. The initial damage caused by loud noise is often small, causing slight hearing problems that disappear after a while. It tends to be a slow, creeping process, noticed only after the damage is done.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's efforts to draw attention to the issue. It is something we should be concerned about and responsive to. That view shared is by the European Commission, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, issued a mandate on personal music players to the European standardisation bodies in 2009. Those bodies are in the process of developing new technical safety standards for manufacturers of MP3s.
	The standards have two key requirements: first, that manufacturers set a safe default volume limit on all personal music players and, secondly, that there are adequate warnings-as the hon. Gentleman has called for-for consumers on the risks involved in listening to music at loud volumes. If I might play devil's advocate, I spoke to a group of young people about music earlier today. One guy, Ben, said, Look, if I want to listen to Bare Groove or Kasabian very loud, then it's my business. A lot of people think that way; they see any form of regulation as a constraint on their ability to choose. They have a point. To some extent, personal choice is important in this debate, and I do not think anyone in the House would want to deny that. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is also fair to say that when some music players on the market are reaching 115 dB-louder than a pneumatic drill-it ceases to be about personal freedom; it is about consumer protection.
	I support the mandate that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I believe that ANEC-the European consumer group-is right to recommend a default volume limit of 89 dB, with a manual override allowing someone to increase the maximum volume to 100 dB if they so choose. It is also appropriate to consider a lower volume cap for products aimed at children. ANEC is calling for a limit of 80 dB, the level at which the risk of hearing loss becomes negligible. That seems sensible to me, and offers us the best of both worlds. It gives protection for the youngest and most vulnerable, and gives others the freedom to listen to The Who, The Jam or whatever at a higher volume if they choose, but with clear warnings in place if they manually override the default setting.
	Although responsibility for regulation sits with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills-a point the hon. Gentleman made-we support the new standards and will work with the European Commission on them. I also understand from the Commission that manufacturers are showing real willingness to work with the Commission to ensure that their products are safe, and I welcome that responsible attitude.
	As the hon. Gentleman suggests, regulation is only one lever for change. The risk of hearing damage depends not just on how loud the noise is, but how long people listen for. Even at 89 dB, prolonged exposure can cause harm, so I agree that educating people and encouraging them to set their music at safe levels continues to be important, not least because it will be some time before the European mandate comes into full effect.
	I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the importance of being proactive. He is right to say that we do not believe a Government awareness campaign is appropriate at this stage, but I am keen that we should work with charities such as the RNID and manufacturers to inform people better of the dangers. I am pleased to be able to tell him that I will now ask the officials at the Department to talk to the RNID see if we can work with them on future public awareness work.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the online campaign, Don't Lose the Music, which gives people simple advice, such as taking a five-minute break from their MP3 players every hour, or not turning the volume up to drown out noise when they are on the tube. I want to see if we can help the campaign to build on this, as I recognise that too many people do not realise that listening to The Killers or to Dillinja and the valve sound-I have not listened to those myself, but I understand that they are particularly loud-at high volumes can damage their health. There is a big education challenge to meet, but I think we are best served if we can get charities and manufacturers working together, with our support, on better information and advice for consumers.
	We are a nation of music lovers. I confess that I am a fan of Elvis Costello, Nils Lofgren and Lou Reed, so I do not want to do anything to dent my or other people's enjoyment of the excellent music that this country has produced for many years. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that people listen to music players safely and without unwittingly-the point that he is making-damaging their hearing. We do not want the fantastic innovation of MP3 players to be spoiled by stories of young people experiencing hearing loss because they are listening to Royworld or Bachman-Turner Overdrive at ear-splitting volumes.
	The European mandate is a helpful starting point for protecting the consumer without infringing people's rights. The Government support the mandate. We welcome the way in which manufacturers have responded so far, and we will work with them and the European Commission to protect our ears. We will work with the RNID and others to introduce public awareness campaigns to ensure that we can all continue to enjoy our music in the years ahead.

Bob Russell: May I place on record my appreciation of the Minister's positive response? We have got more out of the debate tonight than I was hoping for, and I am sure that a big step forward has been taken. I sincerely thank him for the positive response.

Phil Hope: I am glad, and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman sees that the Government are serious. I know that there is more to do. We can work across Government more effectively. I will take away tonight the pledge to work with him and with colleagues in the voluntary sector and others to make sure that we can make a real difference on the issue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.